Identification and location tasks rely on different mental processes: a diffusion model account of validity effects in spatial cueing paradigms with emotional stimuli

ABSTRACT

Spatial cueing paradigms are popular tools to assess human attention to emotional stimuli, but different variants of these paradigms differ in what participants’ primary task is. In one variant, participants indicate the location of the target (location task), whereas in the other they indicate the shape of the target (identification task). In the present paper we test the idea that although these two variants produce seemingly comparable cue validity effects on response times, they rest on different underlying processes. Across four studies (total N = 397; two in the supplement) using both variants and manipulating the motivational relevance of cue content, diffusion model analyses revealed that cue validity effects in location tasks are primarily driven by response biases, whereas the same effect rests on delay due to attention to the cue in identification tasks. Based on this, we predict and empirically support that a symmetrical distribution of valid and invalid cues would reduce cue validity effects in location tasks to a greater extent than in identification tasks. Across all variants of the task, we fail to replicate the effect of greater cue validity effects for arousing (vs. neutral) stimuli. We discuss the implications of these findings for best practice in spatial cueing research.

KEYWORDS:

• Spatial cueing task
• Posner paradigm
• diffusion model
• attention
• response bias

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Sample sizes were determined by a minimum threshold to be reached (N = 100 for Studies 1 and 2), but data collection continued for the rest of that week. Due to a technical error some participants recruited for Study 2 received the script of Study 1 again, leading to asymmetrical distributions of more participants in Study 1 than Study 2. Data were not inspected before data collection was declared finished.

2. IAPS stimuli used in studies 1 and 2:

Negative, High Arousal – for both genders: 3500, 6230, 6313, 6350, 6821; only for women: 1052, 1120, 2730, 8230, 8480; only for men: 3530, 6260, 9410, 9810, 9250

Negative, Low Arousal – for both genders: 2800, 3181, 9090, 9220, 9280, 9830; only for women: 2490, 2702, 2722, 4635; only for men: 2141, 2590, 2750, 9421

Positive, High Arousal – for both genders: 4660, 5621, 5629,5910, 8080, 8185, 8190, 8370; only for women: 2216, 4572; only for men: 4002, 4001

Positive, Low Arousal – for both genders: 1610, 1620, 1750, 1812, 2311, 2360, 2370; only for women: 2304, 5001, 5982; only for men: 2170, 2260, 5760

3. The unexpected interaction of cue valence and cue arousal, was driven by the fact that responses were somewhat faster after positive arousing cues (404 ms) than after other cues (409 ms).

Additional information

Funding

The reported research and preparation of this paper was supported by a Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) grant (IM147/3-1) awarded to Roland Imhoff. All experimental scripts, raw and aggregated data as well as results of additional analyses can be found on the Open Science Framework under https://osf.io/rsbxp.