These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cueing method biases in visual detection studies.
    Author: Jaffard M, Benraiss A, Longcamp M, Velay JL, Boulinguez P.
    Journal: Brain Res; 2007 Nov 07; 1179():106-18. PubMed ID: 17894934.
    Abstract:
    Questions about attention are usually addressed by cueing tasks assessing whether knowledge of stimulus-related information provided in advance will improve target processing. Here, we test the reliability of this classical paradigm by means of using neutral cues in a simple visual detection task. We compared "mixed-block" (cued/no-cued trials are intermixed in the same block of trials) to "pure-block" (cued/no-cued trials are presented separately) protocols. We report converging evidence with behavioral and fMRI experiments that cueing methods entail competing processes of automatic motor activation (triggered by the cue) and proactive response inhibition (intended to counteract automatic responses to the cue). This competition strongly affects the reaction time baseline necessary to measure the "cueing" effect in a mixed-block design. Indeed, in such a protocol, proactive inhibition cannot be released before target presentation. Accordingly, we suggest that this design inevitably leads to biases in interpreting cueing data, and that the effects classically observed with mixed-block protocols are likely to be artifacts that are not attentional in origin. We conclude that the identification of this methodological issue now calls for a reassessment of the theoretical framework used to interpret some cueing effects with respect to their control baseline.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]