title: On finding negative priming from distractors.
abstract: Negative priming from distractors has attracted considerable interest because it appears to reveal a fundamental mechanism of selective attention. Recently, the phenomenon has become muddled because it can be explained in far too many ways. This may partly be because the empirical foundation for the phenomenon has been handicapped by an overreliance on a simplistic comparison of a single experimental condition with control. A sounder approach requires that we collect data that can rule out alternatives to the hypothesis we might favor or test. Regardless of the paradigm used, we propose collecting data from a much fuller set of conditions than is typical. Despite the variety of underlying explanations, we show that the various theories that attribute negative priming to ignoring the distractor predict a common pattern of results across the full set of related conditions. Theories, such as inhibition of return, that do not attribute the cost in performance to ignoring the distractor do not predict this pattern.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. jc@or.psychology.dal.ca
authors.forename: John J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Christie
authors.forename: Raymond M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Klein
mesh_terms: D001288:Attention; D003463:Cues; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D006801:Humans; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D011939:Mental Recall; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011930:Reaction Time; D014163:Transfer, Psychology
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1985 Jan;13(1):74-80
references.pmid: 4010517
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2001 Mar;55(1):24-38
references.pmid: 11301726
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2000 Aug;62(6):1280-96
references.pmid: 11019624
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 1985 Nov;37(4):571-90
references.pmid: 4081101
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1998 Apr;105(2):203-29
references.pmid: 9577237
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1999 Mar;27(2):197-207
references.pmid: 10226431
references.citation: J Gerontol. 1993 Jul;48(4):P179-88
references.pmid: 8315234
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002 Dec;28(6):1323-9
references.pmid: 12542130
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2002 Apr;109(2):376-400
references.pmid: 11990323
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 1995 Jun;2(2):145-73
references.pmid: 24203653
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990 Aug;16(3):492-504
references.pmid: 2144566
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994 Jun;20(3):613-23
references.pmid: 8027715
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 1996 Mar;3(1):87-90
references.pmid: 24214807
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2002 Jul;64(5):855-60; discussion 861-5
references.pmid: 12201343
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1991 Nov;17(6):1136-45
references.pmid: 1838386
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Apr;4(4):138-147
references.pmid: 10740278
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1985 Dec;11(6):777-87
references.pmid: 2934508
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1980 Jan;12(1):97-136
references.pmid: 7351125
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992 Sep;18(5):993-1000
references.pmid: 1402720
references.citation: Percept Mot Skills. 1966 Dec;23(3):1211-4
references.pmid: 5972923