Foveal vs. parafoveal attention-grabbing power of threat-related information.
We investigated whether threat words presented in attended (foveal) and in unattended (parafoveal) locations of the visual field are attention grabbing. Neutral (nonemotional) words were presented at fixation as probes in a lexical decision task. Each probe word was preceded by 2 simultaneous prime words (1 foveal, 1 parafoveal), either threatening or neutral, for 150 ms. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the primes and the probe was either 300 or 1,000 ms. Results revealed slowed lexical decision times on the probe when primed by an unrelated foveal threat word at the short (300-ms) delay. In contrast, parafoveal threat words did not affect processing of the neutral probe at either delay. Nevertheless, both neutral and threat parafoveal words facilitated lexical decisions for identical probe words at 300-ms SOA. This suggests that threat words appearing outside the focus of attention do not draw or engage cognitive resources to such an extent as to produce interference in the processing of concurrent or subsequent neutral stimuli. An explanation of the lack of parafoveal interference is that semantic content is not extracted in the parafovea.
Calvo
Manuel G
MG
Departamento de Psicología Cognitiva, Universidad de La Laguna, Spain. mgcalvo@ull.es
Castillo
M Dolores
MD
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000339:Affect; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D005584:Fovea Centralis / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011930:Reaction Time; D014794:Visual Fields / Q000502:physiology*; D014825:Vocabulary