Does changing distractor environments eliminate spatiomotor biases?

References

• Ball, K., Smith, D., Ellison, A., & Schenk, T. (2009). Both egocentric and allocentric cues support spatial priming in visual search. Neuropsychologia, 47(6), 1585–1591. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.11.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertelson, P. (1963). SR relationships and reaction times to new versus repeated signals in a serial task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(5), 478–484. doi: 10.1037/h0047742
   Google Scholar
• Colzato, L. S., Raffone, A., & Hommel, B. (2006). What do we learn from binding features? Evidence for multilevel feature integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 705–716. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.705
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geyer, T., Müller, H. J., & Krummenacher, J. (2007). Cross-trial priming of element positions in visual pop-out search is dependent on stimulus arrangement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(4), 788–797. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.4.788
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geyer, T., Zehetleitner, M., & Müller, H. J. (2010). Contextual cueing of pop-out visual search: When context guides the deployment of attention. Journal of Vision, 10(5), 1–11. doi: 10.1167/10.5.20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gokce, A., Müller, H. J., & Geyer, T. (2013). Positional priming of pop-out is nested in visuospatial context. Journal of Vision, 13(3), 32. doi: 10.1167/13.3.32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gokce, A., Müller, H. J., & Geyer, T. (2015). Positional priming of visual pop-out search is supported by multiple spatial reference frames. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(838), 1–13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00838
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodale, M. A., & Haffenden, A. (1998). Frames of reference for perception and action in the human visual system. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 22(2), 161–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodale, M. A., & Westwood, D. A. (2004). An evolving view of duplex vision: Separate but interacting cortical pathways for perception and action. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14(2), 203–211. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2004.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guy, S., Buckolz, E., & Pratt, J. (2004). The influence of distractor-only prime trials on the location negative priming mechanism. Experimental Psychology, 51(1), 4–14. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.51.1.4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazeltine, E., Akçay, Ç, & Mordkoff, J. T. (2011). Keeping Simon simple: Examining the relationship between sequential modulations and feature repetitions with two stimuli, two locations and two responses. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 245–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilchey, M. D., Klein, R. M., & Satel, J. (2014). Returning to “inhibition of return” by dissociating long-term oculomotor IOR from short-term sensory adaptation and other nonoculomotor “inhibitory” cueing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1603–1616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilchey, M. D., Leber, A. B., & Pratt, J. (2018a). Testing the role of response repetition in spatial priming in visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(4), 1362–1374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilchey, M. D., Rajsic, J., Huffman, G., Klein, R. M., & Pratt, J. (2018b). Dissociating orienting biases from integration effects with eye movements. Psychological Science, 29(3), 328–339. doi: 10.1177/0956797617734021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilchey, M. D., Rajsic, J., Huffman, G., & Pratt, J. (2017a). Intervening response events between identification targets do not always turn repetition benefits into repetition costs. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(3), 807–819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilchey, M. D., Rajsic, J., Huffman, G., & Pratt, J. (2017b). Response-mediated spatial priming despite perfectly valid target location cues and intervening response events. Visual Cognition, 25, 888–902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1–2), 183–216. doi: 10.1080/713756773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500. doi: 10/1016/j.tics/2004.08.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B. (2005). How much attention does an event file need? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 1067–1082. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.1067
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B. (2007). Feature integration across perception and action: Event files affect response choice. Psychological Research, 71(1), 42–63. doi: 10.1007/s00426-005-0035-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68(1), 1–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huffman, G., Hilchey, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2018). Feature integration in basic detection and localization tasks: Insights from the attentional orienting literature. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(6), 1333–1341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, R. (1988). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search. Nature, 334, 430–431. doi: 10.1038/334430a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristjánsson, Á, Ingvarsdöttir, Á, & Teitsdöttir, U. D. (2008). Object-and feature-based priming in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 378–384. doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.2.378
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krummenacher, J., & Mueller, H. J. (2012). Dynamic weighting of feature dimensions in visual search: Behavioral and psychophysiological evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(221), 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00221
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krummenacher, J., Müller, H. J., Zehetleitner, M., & Geyer, T. (2009). Dimension-and space-based intertrial effects in visual pop-out search: Modulation by task demands for focal-attentional processing. Psychological Research, 73(2), 186–197. doi: 10.1007/s00426-008-0206-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumada, T., & Humphreys, G. W. (2002). Cross-dimensional interference and cross-trial inhibition. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(3), 493–503. doi: 10.3758/BF03194720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupiáñez, J. (2010). Inhibition of return. In A. C. Nobre, & J. T. Coull (Eds.), Attention and time (pp. 17–34). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lupiáñez, J., & Milliken, B. (1999). Inhibition of return and the attentional set for integrating versus differentiating information. The Journal of General Psychology, 126(4), 392–418. doi: 10.1080/00221309909595373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maljkovic, V., & Nakayama, K. (1996). Priming of pop-out: II. The role of position. Perception & Psychophysics, 58(7), 977–991. doi: 10.3758/BF03206826
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77(3), 249–259. doi: 10.1007/s00426-012-0435-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moeller, B., Hommel, B., & Frings, C. (2015). From hands to feet: Abstract response representations in distractor–response bindings. Acta Psychologica, 159, 69–75. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.05.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mordkoff, J. T. (2012). Observation: Three reasons to avoid having half of the trials be congruent in a four-alternative forced-choice experiment on sequential modulation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 750–757. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0257-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neill, W. T., & Kleinsmith, A. L. (2016). Spatial negative priming: Location or response? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(8), 2411–2419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. C. (1991). Procedural learning: II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(1), 33–48. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.17.1.33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. Attention and Performance X: Control of Language Processes, 32, 531–556.
   Google Scholar
• Redden, R. S., Klages, J., & Klein, R. M. (2017). The effect of scene removal on inhibition of return in a cue-target task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(1), 78–84. doi: 10.3758/s13414-016-1228-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2014). Sequential modulations of the Simon effect depend on episodic retrieval. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(855), 1–16. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00855
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka, Y., & Shimojo, S. (1996). Location vs feature: Reaction time reveals dissociation between two visual functions. Vision Research, 36(14), 2125–2140. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(95)02272-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000). Repetition priming reveals sustained facilitation and transient inhibition in reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(4), 1421. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.26.4.1421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, T. L., & Donnelly, M. P. (2002). Inhibition of return for target discriminations: The effect of repeating discriminated and irrelevant stimulus dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(2), 292–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, T. L., & Klein, R. M. (2000). Visual and motor effects in inhibition of return. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1639–1656.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terry, K. M., Valdes, L. A., & Neill, W. T. (1994). Does “inhibition of return” occur in discrimination tasks? Perception & Psychophysics, 55(3), 279–286. doi: 10.3758/BF03207599
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tipper, S. P., Brehaut, J. C., & Driver, J. (1990). Selection of moving and static objects for the control of spatially directed action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(3), 492–405. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.16.3.492
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tower-Richardi, S. M., Leber, A. B., & Golomb, J. D. (2016). Spatial priming in ecologically relevant reference frames. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(1), 114–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Z., & Klein, R. M. (2010). Searching for inhibition of return in visual search: A review. Vision Research, 50(2), 220–228. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weidler, B. J., Hilchey, M. D., Pratt, J., & Abrams, R. A. (2018). Context modulates integration effects – selectively when it is task-relevant. Paper presented at the 59th annual meeting of the psychonomic society, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar