Target activation and distractor inhibition underlie priming of pop-out: A response to Dent (this issue)
Target activation and distractor inhibition underlie priming of pop-out: A response to Dent (this issue)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.visres.2018.03.009
复制
发表时间：
2018-08-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Zivony, Alon
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lamy, Dominique;Zivony, Alon
当目标和干扰物特征重复时，视觉搜索比连续试验时更快，这种现象称为弹出启动（PoP）。在以前的工作中，我们提出了两种机制，每个指标的重复效益和转换成本的基础PoP：目标激活和干扰抑制。与此相一致，我们报告了利益和成本之间的强相关性索引每个机制，并得出结论，有稳定的目标激活和分心抑制过程的个体差异。在随后的工作中，我们注意到我们的收益和成本基线中的缺陷，并提出了一个不同的基线。然而，我们并没有探讨这些缺陷对我们先前结论的影响--登特（本期）在大规模复制我们的研究时填补了这一空白。他发现，当使用校正后的基线时，我们报告的相关性完全消失了，而重复收益是相关的，转换成本也是如此。他的结论是，他的发现使PoP的激活-抑制解释无效，并提出了一个混合解释，根据该解释，重复效应反映了激活和抑制，而转换成本则反映了冲突解决过程。在这里，我们声称，未能观察到相同的组件的指数之间的相关性无效的索赔，这些组件有稳定的个体差异，但不挑战的想法，目标激活和分心物抑制的基础PoP。我们重新分析了四个已发表的实验的数据。作为登特（本期），我们发现相同成分的指数之间没有相关性。然而，我们发现，新的预测的激活-抑制组件帐户的支持，而冲突解决帐户的预测被否定。
Visual search is faster when the target and distractors features repeat than when they switch on successive trials, a phenomenon known as priming of pop-out (PoP). In previous work, we suggested that two mechanisms, each indexed by a repetition benefit and a switch cost underlie PoP: target activation and distractor inhibition. Consistent with this account, we reported strong correlations between the benefit and cost indexing each mechanism and concluded that there are stable individual differences on target-activation and distractor-inhibition processes. In subsequent work, we noted flaws in our baseline for benefits and costs and suggested a different baseline. Yet, we did not explore the implications of these flaws for our previous conclusions - a gap that Dent (this issue) filled in a large-scale replication of our study. He found our reported correlations to entirely vanish when the corrected baselines are used, whereas repetition benefits were correlated and so were switching costs. He concluded that his findings invalidate the activation-inhibition account of PoP and proposed a hybrid account, according to which repetition effects reflect activation and inhibition, whereas switch costs index a conflict-resolution process. Here, we claim that failure to observe correlations between indices of the same components invalidates the claim that there are stable individual differences on these components but does not challenge the idea that target-activation and distractor inhibition underlie PoP. We reanalyzed the data from four published experiments. As Dent (this issue), we find no correlations between indices of the same component. However, we show that novel predictions of the activation-inhibition components account are supported, whereas the predictions of the conflict-resolution account are disconfirmed.