Tracking Flanker Task Dynamics: Evidence for Continuous Attentional Selectivity

Overview

Journal J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform

Specialty Psychology

Date 2022 Jun 2

PMID 35653729

Authors

Kaleb T Kinder

Aaron T Buss

A Caglar Tas

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Understanding the dynamics of selective attention has been a central research goal in the cognitive sciences. One account proposes that attention is unitary and increases in selectivity over time. An alternative account proposes that attention switches from a low to a high state of selectivity at a point in time when a distinct selective attention mechanism is engaged. Despite posing fundamentally different theoretical perspectives on selective attention, both accounts have successfully explained outcome-based data, such as reaction time. Here, we used mouse-tracking, which provides high temporal resolution to record movement trajectories in a flanker task. We examined spatial and temporal movement dynamics for characteristics of continuous and discrete shifts in attentional selectivity. Our results showed that attentional selectivity increases gradually over time, rather than abruptly, demonstrating a continuous process of selective attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Citing Articles

Abnormal resting-state functional connectivity of hippocampal subregions in type 2 diabetes mellitus-associated cognitive decline.

Yao L, Li M, Wang K, Liu Y, Zheng H, Zhong Z Front Psychiatry. 2024; 15:1360623.

PMID: 39376966 PMC: 11456530. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1360623.

The gated cascade diffusion model: An integrated theory of decision making, motor preparation, and motor execution.

Dendauw E, Evans N, Logan G, Haffen E, Bennabi D, Gajdos T Psychol Rev. 2024; 131(4):825-857.

PMID: 38386394 PMC: 7616365. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000464.

A revised diffusion model for conflict tasks.

Lee P, Sewell D Psychon Bull Rev. 2023; 31(1):1-31.

PMID: 37507646 PMC: 10867079. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-023-02288-0.

References

Hubner R, Tobel L . Conflict resolution in the Eriksen flanker task: Similarities and differences to the Simon task. PLoS One. 2019; 14(3):e0214203. PMC: 6438467. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214203. View

deBettencourt M, Norman K, Turk-Browne N . Forgetting from lapses of sustained attention. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017; 25(2):605-611. PMC: 5716934. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1309-5. View

Freeman J . Doing psychological science by hand. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2018; 27(5):315-323. PMC: 6301007. DOI: 10.1177/0963721417746793. View

Cohen J, Servan-Schreiber D, McClelland J . A parallel distributed processing approach to automaticity. Am J Psychol. 1992; 105(2):239-69. View

Evans N, Servant M . A comparison of conflict diffusion models in the flanker task through pseudolikelihood Bayes factors. Psychol Rev. 2019; 127(1):114-135. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000165. View

Freeman J, Ambady N . Motions of the hand expose the partial and parallel activation of stereotypes. Psychol Sci. 2009; 20(10):1183-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02422.x. View

White C, Ratcliff R, Starns J . Diffusion models of the flanker task: discrete versus gradual attentional selection. Cogn Psychol. 2011; 63(4):210-38. PMC: 3195995. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.08.001. View

Campbell J, Thompson V . MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behav Res Methods. 2012; 44(4):1255-65. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0. View

Vatterott D, Mozer M, Vecera S . Rejecting salient distractors: Generalization from experience. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2017; 80(2):485-499. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-017-1465-8. View

10.

White C, Servant M, Logan G . Testing the validity of conflict drift-diffusion models for use in estimating cognitive processes: A parameter-recovery study. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017; 25(1):286-301. PMC: 5788738. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1271-2. View

11.

Freeman J . Abrupt category shifts during real-time person perception. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 21(1):85-92. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0470-8. View

12.

Spivey M, Grosjean M, Knoblich G . Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102(29):10393-8. PMC: 1177386. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0503903102. View

13.

Keysers C, Gazzola V, Wagenmakers E . Using Bayes factor hypothesis testing in neuroscience to establish evidence of absence. Nat Neurosci. 2020; 23(7):788-799. PMC: 7610527. DOI: 10.1038/s41593-020-0660-4. View

14.

Duran N, Dale R, McNamara D . The action dynamics of overcoming the truth. Psychon Bull Rev. 2010; 17(4):486-91. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.4.486. View

15.

Faber L, Maurits N, Lorist M . Mental fatigue affects visual selective attention. PLoS One. 2012; 7(10):e48073. PMC: 3485293. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048073. View

16.

Eriksen C, Schultz D . Information processing in visual search: a continuous flow conception and experimental results. Percept Psychophys. 1979; 25(4):249-63. DOI: 10.3758/bf03198804. View

17.

Reeves A, Sperling G . Attention gating in short-term visual memory. Psychol Rev. 1986; 93(2):180-206. View

18.

Servant M, Evans N . A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging in the Flanker Task. Psychol Aging. 2020; 35(6):831-849. DOI: 10.1037/pag0000546. View

19.

Hubner R, Steinhauser M, Lehle C . A dual-stage two-phase model of selective attention. Psychol Rev. 2010; 117(3):759-84. DOI: 10.1037/a0019471. View

20.

Heitz R, Engle R . Focusing the spotlight: individual differences in visual attention control. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007; 136(2):217-40. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.217. View