title: Why does the effect of short-SOA exogenous cuing on simple RT depend on the number of display locations?
abstract: When the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the cue and target is short (i.e., less than 200 msec) and the number of display locations is small (e.g., only two), exogenous spatial cues produce a benefit in simple response time (RT). However, several recent experiments have found significant costs in these tasks when a large number of display locations is employed (e.g., eight), even at the very short SOAs that usually produce a benefit. The present study explored the dependence of exogenous cuing on the number of display locations and found evidence that both the overall validity of the cues and the specific validity of the cue on the previous trial have strong, additive effects. When a large number of display locations is used, both of these factorswork against a benefit of exogenous cuing on simple RT, reversing the typical finding into a cost. These two effects are suggested to occur within motor and perceptual processes, respectively.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA. jonathan-mordkoff@uiowa.edu
authors.forename: J Toby
authors.initials: JT
authors.lastname: Mordkoff
authors.forename: Rose
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Halterman
authors.forename: Peggy
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Chen
mesh_terms: D001288:Attention; D003463:Cues; D006801:Humans; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011337:Probability Learning; D011597:Psychomotor Performance; D011930:Reaction Time
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1988 Nov;69(2):129-55
references.pmid: 3245479
references.citation: Psychol Res. 1986;48(3):169-77
references.pmid: 3823334
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1997 Nov;59(8):1241-54
references.pmid: 9401458
references.citation: Am J Psychol. 2008 Summer;121(2):229-40
references.pmid: 18510134
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Sep;8(3):489-95
references.pmid: 11700899
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2001 Aug;54(3):753-73
references.pmid: 11548033
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1991 Nov;17(4):1057-74
references.pmid: 1837297
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1969;30:412-31
references.pmid: 5811531
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996 Jun;22(3):725-37
references.pmid: 8666960
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Feb;11(1):65-70
references.pmid: 15116988
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2005 Mar;69(4):285-91
references.pmid: 15235912
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992 Nov;18(4):1030-44
references.pmid: 1431742
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996 Feb;22(1):25-41
references.pmid: 8742250
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 1999 Jun;37(6):731-44
references.pmid: 10390035
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1992 Mar;51(3):279-90
references.pmid: 1561053
references.citation: Vision Res. 1994 Jan;34(2):179-89
references.pmid: 8116277
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1980 Jun;109(2):160-74
references.pmid: 7381367
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2007 Jul;71(4):411-7
references.pmid: 16328434
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Apr;24(2):673-92
references.pmid: 9554103
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1993 Dec;19(6):1278-91
references.pmid: 8294892