title: Prolonged disengagement from distractors near the hands.
abstract: Because items near our hands are often more important than items far from our hands, the brain processes visual items near our hands differently than items far from our hands. Multiple experiments have attributed this processing difference to spatial attention, but the exact mechanism behind how spatial attention near our hands changes is still under investigation. The current experiments sought to differentiate between two of the proposed mechanisms: a prioritization of the space near the hands and a prolonged disengagement of spatial attention near the hands. To differentiate between these two accounts, we used the additional singleton paradigm in which observers searched for a shape singleton among homogenously shaped distractors. On half the trials, one of the distractors was a different color. Both the prioritization and disengagement accounts predict differently colored distractors near the hands will slow target responses more than differently colored distractors far from the hands, but the prioritization account also predicts faster responses to targets near the hands than far from the hands. The disengagement account does not make this prediction, because attention does not need to be disengaged when the target appears near the hand. We found support for the disengagement account: Salient distractors near the hands slowed responses more than those far from the hands, yet observers did not respond faster to targets near the hands.
authors: Department of Psychology, University of Iowa Iowa City, IA, USA.
authors: Daniel B
authors: DB
authors: Vatterott
authors: Shaun P
authors: SP
authors: Vecera
keywords: attentional capture; attentional control; hand position; visual attention; visual processing near hands
references: Psychol Sci. 2010 Sep;21(9):1254-8
references: 20713634
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Dec;1(4):476-90
references: 24203555
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Apr;18(4):604-13
references: 16768363
references: Cognition. 2012 Aug;124(2):244-50
references: 22633129
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Jun;1(2):202-38
references: 24203471
references: Percept Psychophys. 1992 Jun;51(6):599-606
references: 1620571
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Feb;32(1):166-77
references: 16478334
references: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references: 9176952
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010 Oct;135(2):77-99
references: 20507828
references: Percept Psychophys. 2005 Nov;67(8):1354-61
references: 16555587
references: Percept Psychophys. 2000 Oct;62(7):1485-93
references: 11143458
references: Curr Biol. 2000 Nov 16;10(22):1475-7
references: 11102814
references: Cognition. 2008 Jun;107(3):1035-47
references: 17977524
references: Percept Psychophys. 1988 Apr;43(4):307-18
references: 3362658
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 Jul-Aug;16(6):935-43
references: 15298781
references: Exp Brain Res. 1993;97(1):96-109
references: 8131835
references: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1998 Apr;8(2):195-201
references: 9635202
references: Percept Psychophys. 2006 Aug;68(6):919-32
references: 17153188
references: Percept Psychophys. 2000 Jul;62(5):969-83
references: 10997043
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Jun;24(3):847-58
references: 9627420