S1 (FriAM 1-65) - The Psychonomic Society

Friday Morning Papers 35–42
for both syntactic processing of language stimuli and statistical learning
of complex sequential patterns more generally.
10:40–10:55 (35)
Getting Smart: The Role of Domain-General Learning in the Development
of Flexible Behaviors. VLADIMIR M. SLOUTSKY, Ohio
State University—People can rely on different kinds of information
in different situations: even 4- to 5-year-olds were relying on linguistic
labels when inferring a biological property, while relying on appearance
when inferring a physical property. It has been argued that
such flexibility cannot be acquired associatively and it requires rich
conceptual knowledge about the world. We propose an associative
learning account of smart flexibility: if Cue X is predictive in Context
A and Cue Y is predictive in Context B, then participants should
learn this context–cue contingency, thus attending to Cue X in Context
A and to Cue Y in Context B. Evidence supports this argument:
After learning, 4- to 5-year-olds generalized by relying on one cue in
Context 1 and on another cue in Context 2, which they did not do before
learning. Furthermore, this learning was implicit and flexibility
was observed in various generalization tasks, including property induction
and word learning.
11:00–11:15 (36)
Spatial Adaptation: Origins and Development. NORA S. NEW-
COMBE, Temple University—Debate in developmental psychology
concerning the origins of knowledge often centers on the question of
what capabilities are available at the start of life. Although this question
is important, understanding subsequent development, and the mature
cognitive architecture to which the developing child is headed,
also has crucial implications for the nativist–empiricist debate. This
talk will consider the evidence on two contrasting approaches to the
origins of spatial knowledge. In a modular view, various sources of
spatial information are processed independently by innate mechanisms.
In adaptive combination models, information sources are combined,
using mechanisms that weight sources based on their potential
usefulness and that change with experience.
11:20–11:35 (37)
Can Domain-Specific Constraints Arise From Domain-General
Learning Mechanisms? JAMES L. MCCLELLAND, Stanford University—A
perspective on cognitive and conceptual development will
be presented, within which sensitivity to domain-specific constraints
arises from domain-general mechanisms applied to different types of
information. These mechanisms have been employed in paralleldistributed
processing models that explain how sensitivity to domainspecific
structure arises gradually over development, how this sensitivity
provides a basis for appropriate inference in domain-specific
task situations, and how the results of such inferential processes can
then be stored in memory and retrieved for later use (Rogers & Mc-
Clelland, 2004). The talk will stress recent applications of these ideas
to data from young children’s performance in tasks requiring attribution
of causal powers to objects based on the outcomes of events in
which these and other objects participate.
Capture and Control of Attention
Regency DEFH, Friday Morning, 10:20–12:00
Chaired by Shaun P. Vecera, University of Iowa
10:20–10:35 (38)
Perceptual Load Influences Attentional Capture by Abrupt Onsets.
JOSHUA D. COSMAN & SHAUN P. VECERA, University of
Iowa (read by Shaun P. Vecera)—The abrupt appearance of a new object
captures attention, even when the object is task irrelevant. But this
attentional capture is reduced in dual-task situations (Boot et al.,
2005) and by fixating nononset targets (Christ & Abrams, 2006). We
asked if perceptual load affected attentional capture. Subjects
searched for a target letter through low-load (set size = 1) and high-
6
load (set size = 6) displays. Two irrelevant flankers also appeared, one
as an onset and the other as a nononset. Onset flankers affected search
in low-load, but not high-load, displays. This modulation of attentional
capture was not caused by generalized slowing when searching
through high-load displays; search for a single perceptually degraded
target slowed response times but did not affect attentional capture.
These findings demonstrate that attentional capture is abolished when
searching through complex visual displays.
10:40–10:55 (39)
Unexpected Abrupt Onsets Can Override Top-Down Set for Color.
CHARLES L. FOLK, Villanova University, & ROGER W. REMING-
TON, University of Queensland—It is well established that a topdown
set for a location (i.e., focused attention) or a feature property
(e.g., color) can eliminate attentional capture by irrelevant abrupt onsets.
However, Neo and Chua (in press) have recently shown capture
by infrequent abrupt onsets even under focused attention. The present
experiments tested whether infrequent abrupt onsets can also override
a top-down set for a feature property such as color. In both spatial cuing
and RSVP tasks, colored targets were preceded by frequent or infrequent
abrupt onset distractors. Consistent with previous work, frequent
onset distractors had no effect on search for colored targets. Infrequent
onset distractors, however, produced a pattern of performance indicative
of attentional capture. The results suggest that violations of expectancy
may give rise to stimulus-driven capture of attention, consistent
with early work on the orienting reflex (Sokolov, 1963).
11:00–11:15 (40)
Is Top-Down Guidance Possible in Singleton Search? CARLY J.
LEONARD & HOWARD E. EGETH, Johns Hopkins University (read
by Howard E. Egeth)—While it is clear that the goals of an observer
influence behavior, their role in the guidance of visual attention has
been much debated. In particular, there has been controversy over
whether top-down knowledge can influence attentional guidance in
search for a singleton item that is already salient on a bottom-up account
(Theeuwes, Reimann, & Mortier, 2006). One suggestion is that
passive intertrial priming accounts for what has been called top-down
guidance (e.g., Maljkovic & Nakayama, 1994). In the present study,
participants responded to the shape of a singleton target among homogeneous
distractors in a trial-by-trial cuing design. We examined
the influence of target expectancy, trial history, and target salience
(manipulated by varying the number of distractors). Top-down influence
resulted in fast RTs that were independent of display size, even
on trials that received no priming. Our findings show there is a role
for top-down guidance, even in singleton search.
11:20–11:35 (41)
Differences Between Covert Attention and Eye Movements in Top-
Down and Bottom-Up Interaction. XINGSHAN LI & KYLE R. CAVE,
University of Massachusetts (read by Kyle R. Cave)—This study explored
how top-down and bottom-up factors are integrated when controlling
covert attention and eye movements. Top-down factors (informative
location cues, search strategy) and bottom-up factors (an
orientation singleton) were manipulated systematically. There were
three main findings. (1) An endogenous cue controlled covert attention
independently from bottom-up factors. (2) An irrelevant singleton captured
eye movements, but only in singleton detection mode. Eye movement
control differed from covert attention control in that it showed competition
between top-down and bottom-up factors. Although competition
is necessary in eye movement control because only one location can be
fixated at a time, it is less important in covert attention, because topdown
and bottom-up factors can exert their effects on different locations
simultaneously. (3) The control of search strategy between singleton detection
mode and feature detection mode was not perfect. Some salient
singletons could capture attention even in feature search mode.
11:40–11:55 (42)
Systems of Attentional and Oculomotor Capture. SHU-CHIEH WU,