S1 (FriAM 1-65) - The Psychonomic Society

Posters 2001–2007 Friday Noon
POSTER SESSION II
Grand Ballroom, Convention Center, Friday Noon, 12:00–1:30
• SELECTIVE ATTENTION •
(2001)
A Diffusion Model Account of Threat Processing in Anxiety.
COREY N. WHITE, ROGER RATCLIFF, MICHAEL W. VASEY, &
GAIL MCKOON, Ohio State University (sponsored by Anjali Thapar)—
In the present study, the diffusion model (Ratcliff, 1978) was used to
assess anxiety-related differences in the processing of threatening information.
Individuals with high trait anxiety have been shown to exhibit
an attentional bias for threatening information, but this effect has
been suggested to only occur in tasks involving competition for processing
resources (Bradley & Mathews, 1991). The present study
replicated this effect in a lexical decision task, challenging the claim
that processing competition is necessary. The results from a recognition
memory task suggest reduced rehearsal of threatening words for
anxious individuals. This pattern of results is discussed in relation to
current theories of anxiety. The processing components for individuals
correlated strongly between the lexical decision and recognition
tasks, suggesting relatively stable individual differences in processing.
The results of this study support the use of the diffusion model as a
preferred alternative to traditional analyses of accuracy or mean reaction
times.
(2002)
Semantic and Perceptual Determinants of Within-Modality Distraction.
JOHN E. MARSH, HELEN M. HODGETTS, & DYLAN M.
JONES, Cardiff University—Using a free recall task (in which stimuli
were exemplars drawn from semantic categories), we show that correct
recall is disrupted by the semantic and perceptual similarity between
the to-be-remembered (TBR) and to-be-ignored (TBI) items. This
finding contrasts with previous research suggesting that only semantic
properties of the TBR and TBI items disrupt correct recall in this
setting (Marsh, Hodgetts, & Jones, 2007). In the present study, irrelevant
exemplars were selected from either the same or different semantic
category as TBR items and were either visually or auditorily
presented. Perceptual similarity was manipulated by word presentation
color (visual) or gender of voice (auditory). The degree of disruption
to correct recall was amplified by the perceptual similarity
manipulation but only when the irrelevant items were semantically
similar to the TBR items. This finding suggests that perceptual and
semantic factors interact to determine recall performance. The results
are discussed in terms of source monitoring and semantic activation/inhibition
theories.
(2003)
Associative Judgments Block Semantic Processing . . . ERIN
BUCHANAN, WILLIAM S. MAKI, & MELISSA PATTON, Texas Tech
University— . . . but not vice versa. Pairs of words were presented that
varied with respect to both associative strength and semantic feature
overlap. Some human subjects judged associative strength (likelihood of
word B in response to word A), whereas other subjects judged semantic
similarity (number of features shared by words A and B). Associative
judgments were influenced by associative strength, but not affected by
feature overlap. Semantic judgments, however, were influenced by
both feature overlap and associative strength. How do associative
judgments block semantic processing? We will report on experiments
that use priming techniques to reveal the time course of the processes
responsible for the attentional asymmetry.
(2004)
The Role of Valence and Frequency in Stroop Color Naming.
TODD A. KAHAN & CHARLES D. HELY, Bates College—People
are generally slower to name the color of emotional words relative to
neutral words. However an analysis of this emotional Stroop effect
(Larsen, Mercer, & Balota, 2006) indicates that the emotion words
69
used are often longer, have lower frequencies, and have smaller orthographic
neighborhoods than the neutral words. This raises the possibility
that the emotional Stroop effect is partly caused by lexical
rather than emotional aspects of the stimuli, a conclusion supported
by the finding that reaction times to name the color of low-frequency
words are longer than those for high-frequency words (Burt, 2002).
To examine the relative contributions of valence and frequency in
Stroop color naming, 64 participants completed an experiment where
each of these variables was manipulated in a 3 � 2 factorial design;
length, orthographic neighborhood density, and arousal were equated.
An interaction between valence and frequency indicates that the emotional
Stroop effect depends on word frequency.
(2005)
Electrophysiological Evidence That Semantic Visual Word Processing
Requires Spatial Attention. LOGAN CORNETT & MEI-CHING
LIEN, Oregon State University, ERIC RUTHRUFF, University of New
Mexico, & JOEL LACHTER, NASA Ames Research Center—Recent
behavioral studies show that unattended words do not influence responses,
suggesting that words are not identified without spatial attention.
A viable alternative explanation, however, is that unattended
words can be fully identified, but somehow fail to influence response
processes. To test this hypothesis, we used a more direct measure of
word identification: the N400 component of the event-related potential
(ERP). The N400 effect is the difference in ERPs between words
that match and mismatch the current semantic context. Only identified
words can produce a significant N400 effect. This effect thus provides
a highly specific, continuous index of semantic word processing,
which is largely independent of subsequent response processes.
We used a spatial cuing paradigm, in which cued (attended) words and
noncued (nonattended) words could match or mismatch the semantic
context. We found an N400 effect only for cued words, suggesting that
visual word processing requires spatial attention.
(2006)
Weaker Interference Control for Words Than for Arrows in Low
Perceptual Load Contexts. GREGORY J. DAVIS, ADAM T. BIGGS,
BRADLEY A. DOBRZENSKI, & BRADLEY S. GIBSON, University
of Notre Dame—Gibson and Scheutz (2006) have recently shown
that interference control in low perceptual load contexts is stronger
when symbolic cues are iconic and express deictic spatial relations
(arrows) than when they are abstract and express projective spatial relations
(spatial words). The present experiments advanced this line of
investigation by showing (1) that the observed differences in interference
control are not due to differences in the ability to disengage attention
from these cues; (2) that the observed differences in interference
control occur only in the presence of distraction, but not in
simple detection tasks; and (3) that the weaker interference control associated
with projective spatial relations can be observed in both the
visual and auditory modalities. This modulation of visual selective attention
has important theoretical implications because it appears to
operate via different mechanisms than other well-known determinants
of visual selective attention such as perceptual load and cognitive
load.
(2007)
Examining the Automaticity of Symbolic Attentional Cues: Do
Gaze Cues and Arrow Cues Enhance Perception? NASEEM AL-
AIDROOS, SARA A. STEVENS, GREG L. WEST, & ULRICH W.
WEGER, University of Toronto, JIM MCAULIFFE, Nipissing University,
& JAY PRATT, University of Toronto—Traditionally, reflexive
attentional orienting is thought to result from the appearance of peripheral
stimuli that draw attention to their presented location. Recent
evidence has emerged suggesting that two types of centrally presented
symbolic cues may also produce reflexive orienting: eye-gaze and
arrow cues. To test this argument, we used the criterion that the volitional
deployment of attention facilitates response speed and perceptual
accuracy, whereas reflexive attention only facilitates response