Disentangling attention from action in the emotional spatial cueing task

Abstract

In the emotional spatial cueing task, a peripheral cue—either emotional or non-emotional—is presented before target onset. A stronger cue validity effect with an emotional relative to a non-emotional cue (i.e., more efficient responding to validly cued targets relative to invalidly cued targets) is taken as an indication of emotional modulation of attentional processes. However, results from previous emotional spatial cueing studies are not consistent. Some studies find an effect at the validly cued location (shorter reaction times compared to a non-emotional cue), whereas other studies find an effect at the invalidly cued location (longer reaction times compared to a non-emotional cue). In the current paper, we explore which parameters affect emotional modulation of the cue validity effect in the spatial cueing task. Results from five experiments in healthy volunteers led to the conclusion that a threatening spatial cue did not affect attention processes but rather indicate that motor processes are affected. A possible mechanism might be that a strong aversive cue stimulus decreases reaction times by means of stronger action preparation. Consequently, in case of a spatially congruent response with the peripheral cue, a stronger cue validity effect could be obtained due to stronger response priming. The implications for future research are discussed.

Keywords:

• Emotional attention
• Spatial cueing
• Response mode
• Response priming
• Action tendency

Notes

¹ Note the difference between the Simon effect, which refers to the finding that RTs are typically faster when the target is presented at the same relative location as the response, and motor response priming effects, which refers to the finding that RTs are typically faster when a prime is presented prior to the target that elicits the same motor response as the response to the target.

² An ANOVA on RT with all participants included showed comparable results: main effect of cue [F (1,22) = 72.63, p < .01, = .77] and a marginal significant interaction between phase and signal [F (1,22) = 3.93, p = .06, = .15].

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by a Rubicon grant from NWO (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research) to M. Mulckhuyse.