J Exp Psychol Gen. 2023 Aug;152(8):2189. doi: 10.1037/xge0001474.
Reports an error in "Attention does not spread automatically along objects: Evidence from the pupillary light response" by Felipe Luzardo, Wolfgang Einhäuser, Monique Michl and Yaffa Yeshurun (, 2023[Jul], Vol 152[7], 2040-2051). The target stimuli were missing from Figures 1 and 2 and have now been included. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2023-49083-001.) Objects influence attention allocation; when a location within an object is cued, participants react faster to targets appearing in a different location within this object than on a different object. Despite consistent demonstrations of this object-based effect, there is no agreement regarding its underlying mechanisms. To test the most common hypothesis that attention spreads automatically along the cued object, we utilized a continuous, response-free measurement of attentional allocation that relies on the modulation of the pupillary light response. In Experiments 1 and 2, attentional spreading was not encouraged because the target appeared often (60%) at the cued location and considerably less often at other locations (20% within the same object and 20% on another object). In Experiment 3, spreading was encouraged because the target appeared equally often in one of the three possible locations within the cued object (cued end, middle, uncued end). In all experiments, we added gray-to-black and gray-to-white luminance gradients to the objects. By cueing the gray ends of the objects, we could track attention. If attention indeed spreads automatically along objects, then pupil size should be greater after the gray-to-dark object is cued because attention spreads toward darker areas of the object than when the gray-to-white object is cued, regardless of the target location probability. However, unequivocal evidence of attentional spreading was only found when spreading was encouraged. These findings do not support an automatic spreading of attention. Instead, they suggest that attentional spreading along the object is guided by cue-target contingencies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
报告了 Felipe Luzardo、Wolfgang Einhäuser、Monique Michl 和 Yaffa Yeshurun 的论文“注意力不会自动沿着物体扩散:瞳孔光反应的证据”(,2023[7 月],第 152 卷,2040-2051)中的错误。图 1 和 2 中缺少目标刺激物,现在已将其包括在内。本文的在线版本已更正。(原始文章的摘要如下所示。)物体影响注意力分配;当对象内的一个位置被提示时,参与者对出现在该对象内不同位置的目标的反应比对不同对象的目标的反应更快。尽管已经一致证明了这种基于对象的效应,但对于其潜在机制仍没有达成共识。为了测试注意力自动沿着提示对象扩散的最常见假设,我们利用了一种连续的、无需反应的注意力分配测量方法,该方法依赖于瞳孔光反应的调制。在实验 1 和 2 中,没有鼓励注意力扩散,因为目标经常(60%)出现在提示位置,而在其他位置(20%在同一对象内,20%在另一个对象上)出现的频率要低得多。在实验 3 中,由于目标在提示对象内的三个可能位置之一(提示端、中间、未提示端)以相同的频率出现,因此鼓励了扩散。在所有实验中,我们都在对象上添加了从灰色到黑色和从灰色到白色的亮度梯度。通过提示对象的灰色端,我们可以跟踪注意力。如果注意力确实沿着对象自动扩散,那么当提示灰色到暗物体时,瞳孔大小应该会更大,因为与提示灰色到白色物体相比,注意力会扩散到物体的较暗区域,而不管目标位置的概率如何。然而,只有在鼓励扩散时,才会发现明确的注意力扩散证据。这些发现不支持注意力的自动扩散。相反,它们表明注意力沿着物体的扩散是由线索-目标的关联引导的。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。