Viewers prefer predictive cues
•Participants detected a target during ignoring previous predictive cues.•After the cueing task, a task requiring evaluation of preceding cues was conducted.•Two kinds of preceding cues which have more or less predictability were prepared.•The cue stimuli were devaluated when they had less predictab...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Consciousness and cognition 2016-08, Vol.44, p.179-185 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 185 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 179 |
container_title | Consciousness and cognition |
container_volume | 44 |
creator | Kuratomi, Kei Yoshizaki, Kazuhito |
description | •Participants detected a target during ignoring previous predictive cues.•After the cueing task, a task requiring evaluation of preceding cues was conducted.•Two kinds of preceding cues which have more or less predictability were prepared.•The cue stimuli were devaluated when they had less predictability.
Devaluation-by-inhibition hypothesis demonstrated that previously ignored items are judged more negatively than previously attended and novel items. Based on this view, the present study investigated the evaluation of preceding stimuli that presumably elicit attentional processes to task-relevant stimuli. Accordingly, we employed a Posner-type cueing task followed by evaluation of the preceding cues indicating left and right directions. The important manipulation is predictability of two different preceding cues which predict the target location with high or with low probability. In Experiment 1 with two different arrows, a low predictive arrow was judged more negatively than a high predictive cue. Experiment 2 using gaze cues of two persons instead of two different arrows supported the findings of Experiment 1. These findings are consistent with devaluation-by-inhibition, suggesting that cue items triggering attention to the target are devaluated when they have less predictability. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.concog.2016.07.006 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1827916696</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1053810016302021</els_id><sourcerecordid>1818339755</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-ee62b7d679525d43dc20487101dbc2025197e43ca04efec2af7e15e551ef9ad33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-AykFL14SZ7-zF0GKX1Dwol6XdDORhDapu2nFf--GVA8exNPMwjPvzD6EnFNIKVB1VaeubVz7lrL4SkGnAOqAjCkYSBjX6rDvJU8yCjAiJyHUAJBpIY_JiGlJmaEwJtPXCj_Qh9nGY4m-L0XlumqHM7fFcEqOynwV8GxfJ-Tl7vZ5_pAsnu4f5zeLxAnDuwRRsaUulDaSyULwwjEQmY53FsvYMkmNRsFdDiJucSwvNVKJUlIsTV5wPiGXQ-7Gt-9xb2fXVXC4WuUNtttgaca0oUoZ9Q-UZpwbLWVEL36hdbv1TfxIHyhkJo2mkRID5XwbQtRgN75a5_7TUrC9alvbQbXtVVvQNqqOY9N9-Ha5xuJn6NttBK4HAKO4XYXeBldh46Jgj66zRVv9veELetCOPg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1824585971</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Viewers prefer predictive cues</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Kuratomi, Kei ; Yoshizaki, Kazuhito</creator><creatorcontrib>Kuratomi, Kei ; Yoshizaki, Kazuhito</creatorcontrib><description>•Participants detected a target during ignoring previous predictive cues.•After the cueing task, a task requiring evaluation of preceding cues was conducted.•Two kinds of preceding cues which have more or less predictability were prepared.•The cue stimuli were devaluated when they had less predictability.
Devaluation-by-inhibition hypothesis demonstrated that previously ignored items are judged more negatively than previously attended and novel items. Based on this view, the present study investigated the evaluation of preceding stimuli that presumably elicit attentional processes to task-relevant stimuli. Accordingly, we employed a Posner-type cueing task followed by evaluation of the preceding cues indicating left and right directions. The important manipulation is predictability of two different preceding cues which predict the target location with high or with low probability. In Experiment 1 with two different arrows, a low predictive arrow was judged more negatively than a high predictive cue. Experiment 2 using gaze cues of two persons instead of two different arrows supported the findings of Experiment 1. These findings are consistent with devaluation-by-inhibition, suggesting that cue items triggering attention to the target are devaluated when they have less predictability.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-8100</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1090-2376</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.07.006</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27512910</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Attention - physiology ; Cognitive psychology ; Cues ; Devaluation-by-inhibition hypothesis ; Female ; Humans ; Inhibition (Psychology) ; Judgment - physiology ; Male ; Photic Stimulation - methods ; Posner-type cuing task ; Reaction Time - physiology ; Students - psychology ; Task analysis ; Visual attention ; Visual Perception - physiology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Consciousness and cognition, 2016-08, Vol.44, p.179-185</ispartof><rights>2016 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-ee62b7d679525d43dc20487101dbc2025197e43ca04efec2af7e15e551ef9ad33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-ee62b7d679525d43dc20487101dbc2025197e43ca04efec2af7e15e551ef9ad33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.07.006$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27512910$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kuratomi, Kei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshizaki, Kazuhito</creatorcontrib><title>Viewers prefer predictive cues</title><title>Consciousness and cognition</title><addtitle>Conscious Cogn</addtitle><description>•Participants detected a target during ignoring previous predictive cues.•After the cueing task, a task requiring evaluation of preceding cues was conducted.•Two kinds of preceding cues which have more or less predictability were prepared.•The cue stimuli were devaluated when they had less predictability.
Devaluation-by-inhibition hypothesis demonstrated that previously ignored items are judged more negatively than previously attended and novel items. Based on this view, the present study investigated the evaluation of preceding stimuli that presumably elicit attentional processes to task-relevant stimuli. Accordingly, we employed a Posner-type cueing task followed by evaluation of the preceding cues indicating left and right directions. The important manipulation is predictability of two different preceding cues which predict the target location with high or with low probability. In Experiment 1 with two different arrows, a low predictive arrow was judged more negatively than a high predictive cue. Experiment 2 using gaze cues of two persons instead of two different arrows supported the findings of Experiment 1. These findings are consistent with devaluation-by-inhibition, suggesting that cue items triggering attention to the target are devaluated when they have less predictability.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Attention - physiology</subject><subject>Cognitive psychology</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Devaluation-by-inhibition hypothesis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inhibition (Psychology)</subject><subject>Judgment - physiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Photic Stimulation - methods</subject><subject>Posner-type cuing task</subject><subject>Reaction Time - physiology</subject><subject>Students - psychology</subject><subject>Task analysis</subject><subject>Visual attention</subject><subject>Visual Perception - physiology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1053-8100</issn><issn>1090-2376</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-AykFL14SZ7-zF0GKX1Dwol6XdDORhDapu2nFf--GVA8exNPMwjPvzD6EnFNIKVB1VaeubVz7lrL4SkGnAOqAjCkYSBjX6rDvJU8yCjAiJyHUAJBpIY_JiGlJmaEwJtPXCj_Qh9nGY4m-L0XlumqHM7fFcEqOynwV8GxfJ-Tl7vZ5_pAsnu4f5zeLxAnDuwRRsaUulDaSyULwwjEQmY53FsvYMkmNRsFdDiJucSwvNVKJUlIsTV5wPiGXQ-7Gt-9xb2fXVXC4WuUNtttgaca0oUoZ9Q-UZpwbLWVEL36hdbv1TfxIHyhkJo2mkRID5XwbQtRgN75a5_7TUrC9alvbQbXtVVvQNqqOY9N9-Ha5xuJn6NttBK4HAKO4XYXeBldh46Jgj66zRVv9veELetCOPg</recordid><startdate>201608</startdate><enddate>201608</enddate><creator>Kuratomi, Kei</creator><creator>Yoshizaki, Kazuhito</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201608</creationdate><title>Viewers prefer predictive cues</title><author>Kuratomi, Kei ; Yoshizaki, Kazuhito</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-ee62b7d679525d43dc20487101dbc2025197e43ca04efec2af7e15e551ef9ad33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Attention - physiology</topic><topic>Cognitive psychology</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Devaluation-by-inhibition hypothesis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inhibition (Psychology)</topic><topic>Judgment - physiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Photic Stimulation - methods</topic><topic>Posner-type cuing task</topic><topic>Reaction Time - physiology</topic><topic>Students - psychology</topic><topic>Task analysis</topic><topic>Visual attention</topic><topic>Visual Perception - physiology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kuratomi, Kei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshizaki, Kazuhito</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Consciousness and cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kuratomi, Kei</au><au>Yoshizaki, Kazuhito</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Viewers prefer predictive cues</atitle><jtitle>Consciousness and cognition</jtitle><addtitle>Conscious Cogn</addtitle><date>2016-08</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>44</volume><spage>179</spage><epage>185</epage><pages>179-185</pages><issn>1053-8100</issn><eissn>1090-2376</eissn><abstract>•Participants detected a target during ignoring previous predictive cues.•After the cueing task, a task requiring evaluation of preceding cues was conducted.•Two kinds of preceding cues which have more or less predictability were prepared.•The cue stimuli were devaluated when they had less predictability.
Devaluation-by-inhibition hypothesis demonstrated that previously ignored items are judged more negatively than previously attended and novel items. Based on this view, the present study investigated the evaluation of preceding stimuli that presumably elicit attentional processes to task-relevant stimuli. Accordingly, we employed a Posner-type cueing task followed by evaluation of the preceding cues indicating left and right directions. The important manipulation is predictability of two different preceding cues which predict the target location with high or with low probability. In Experiment 1 with two different arrows, a low predictive arrow was judged more negatively than a high predictive cue. Experiment 2 using gaze cues of two persons instead of two different arrows supported the findings of Experiment 1. These findings are consistent with devaluation-by-inhibition, suggesting that cue items triggering attention to the target are devaluated when they have less predictability.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27512910</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.concog.2016.07.006</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1053-8100 |
ispartof | Consciousness and cognition, 2016-08, Vol.44, p.179-185 |
issn | 1053-8100 1090-2376 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1827916696 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Adult Attention - physiology Cognitive psychology Cues Devaluation-by-inhibition hypothesis Female Humans Inhibition (Psychology) Judgment - physiology Male Photic Stimulation - methods Posner-type cuing task Reaction Time - physiology Students - psychology Task analysis Visual attention Visual Perception - physiology Young Adult |
title | Viewers prefer predictive cues |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T08%3A02%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Viewers%20prefer%20predictive%20cues&rft.jtitle=Consciousness%20and%20cognition&rft.au=Kuratomi,%20Kei&rft.date=2016-08&rft.volume=44&rft.spage=179&rft.epage=185&rft.pages=179-185&rft.issn=1053-8100&rft.eissn=1090-2376&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.concog.2016.07.006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1818339755%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1824585971&rft_id=info:pmid/27512910&rft_els_id=S1053810016302021&rfr_iscdi=true |