SENSITIVITY AND CRITERION EFFECTS IN THE SPATIAL CUEING OF VISUAL-ATTENTION
SENSITIVITY AND CRITERION EFFECTS IN THE SPATIAL CUEING OF VISUAL-ATTENTION
复制标题
DOI：
10.3758/bf03203097
复制
发表时间：
1987-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
FINDLAY, JM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
MULLER, HJ;FINDLAY, JM
本研究涉及三个关于注意在周边检测中的作用的问题：（1）对具有高概率目标出现的空间位置的检测率增加是由于敏感性还是标准效应？(2)空间线索效应（概率启动）是否需要对字母检测和亮度增量检测做出不同的解释（Shaw，1984）？(3)注意力是否可以在两个最有可能被提示的独立位置之间共享（Posner，Snyder，and Davidson，1980）？这些问题进行了调查，在两个实验中，都使用信号检测加定位任务（评级方法）。在实验1（符号检测），单或双线索表明一个或两个最有可能的位置（三个或两个最不可能的位置）。引入第二个线索位置导致了一个显着的灵敏度增益为这个位置，相对于在单线索条件下的uncued位置。决策标准更自由的线索和更保守的无线索的位置。在实验2中，亮度增量（单目标探头）和两个符号检测（目标加干扰）任务进行了比较。对于符号检测，有一个显着的启动效应，但亮度检测，线索位置显示没有优势的敏感性。然而，所有的任务都表现出不同的标准设置线索和uncue的位置。这些结果表明，字母检测是容量有限的，而亮度增量检测不是，而且，决策标准在很大程度上是预设根据先验的目标概率分配给特定的位置。
This study is concerned with three questions about the role of attention in peripheral detection: (1) Is the increased detection rate for spatial locations with high probabilities of target occurrence assigned to them due to sensitivity or criterion effects? (2) Does the effect of spatial cuing (probabilistic priming) require different explanations for letter detection and detection of luminance increments (Shaw, 1984)? (3) Can attention be shared between two separate locations cued to be most likely (Posner, Snyder, and Davidson, 1980)?. These questions were investigated in two experiments, both using a signal detection plus localization task (rating method). In Experiment 1 (symbol detection), single or double cues indicating one or two most likely locations (three or two least likely locations) were presented. Introducing the second cued locatsion resulted in a marked sensitivity gain for this position, relative to uncued locations in the single-cue condition. Decision criteria were more liberal for cued and more conservative for uncued locations. In Experiment 2, a luminance increment (single target probe) and two symbol detection (target plus distractors) tasks were compared. For symbol detection, there was a marked priming effect; but for luminance detection, cued locations showed no advantage in sensitivity. However, all tasks showed differential criterion setting for cued and for uncued locations. These results suggest that letter detection is capacity limited, whereas luminance increment detection is not, and furthermore, that decision criteria are largely preset according to a priori target probabilities assigned to particular locations.