Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:18:56.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Processing of Threat-related Information Outside the Focus of Visual Attention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Manuel G. Calvo  and
M. Dolores Castillo
Manuel G. Calvo*
Affiliation:
University of La Laguna
M. Dolores Castillo
Affiliation:
University of La Laguna
*
Address correspondence concerning this article to: Manuel G. Calvo, Departamento de Psicología Cognitiva, Universidad de La Laguna, 38205 Tenerife (Spain). Phone: + 34 922 317 514. Fax: + 34 922 317 461. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates whether threat-related words are especially likely to be perceived in unattended locations of the visual field. Threat-related, positive, and neutral words were presented at fixation as probes in a lexical decision task. The probe word was preceded by 2 simultaneous prime words (1 foveal, i.e., at fixation; 1 parafoveal, i.e., 2.2 deg. of visual angle from fixation), which were presented for 150 ms, one of which was either identical or unrelated to the probe. Results showed significant facilitation in lexical response times only for the probe threat words when primed parafoveally by an identical word presented in the right visual field. We conclude that threat-related words have privileged access to processing outside the focus of attention. This reveals a cognitive bias in the preferential, parallel processing of information that is important for adaptation.

En el presente estudio se investiga si las palabras relativas a peligros se perciben fuera del campo de atención visual. En una tarea de decisión léxica se presentaron como estímulos de prueba palabras representativas de peligro, otras de contenido emocional positivo, y otras neutras. La palabra de prueba iba precedida por 2 palabras-contexto simultáneas (1 en posición foveal, en el centro del campo visual; 1 parafoveal, desplazada 2.2 grados a izquierda o derecha) durante 150 ms. Una de las palabras-contexto era idéntica a la de prueba o bien no estaba relacionada ésta. Los resultados mostraron facilitación en la tarea de decisión léxica para las palabras de peligro cuando estaban precedidas por una palabra idéntica en el campo parafoveal derecho. Se concluye que las palabras de peligro tienen un acceso privilegiado (en comparación con las neutras y con las positivas) para ser analizadas fuera del foco de atención. Esto revela un sesgo cognitivo en el procesamiento preferente y en paralelo de la información con importancia adaptativa.

Keywords

attentionemotional stimuliparafovealprimingatenciónestímulos emocionalesparafovealactivación
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , May 2005 , pp. 3 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abad, M.J., Noguera, C., & Ortells, J J. (2003). Influence of prime-target relationship on semantic priming effects from words in a lexical-decision task. Acta Psychologica, 113, 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artigas, J.M., Capilla, P., Felipe, A., & Pujol, J. (1995). Optica fisiológica. Psicofísica de la visión. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bruce, V., Green, P.R., & Georgeson, M.A. (2003). Visual perception (4th ed.). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Vitu, F., & Schroyens, W. (1996). The right visual field advantage and the optimal viewing position effect: On the relation between foveal and parafoveal word recognition. Neuropsychology, 10, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijksterjuis, A., & Aarts, H. (2003). On wildebeests and humans: The preferential detection of negative stimuli. Psychological Science, 14, 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Pace, E., Longoni, A.M., & Zoccolotti, P. (1991). Semantic processing of unattended parafoveal words. Acta Psychologica, 77, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duscherer, K., & Holender, D. (2002). No negative semantic priming from unconscious flanker words in sight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 839–853.Google ScholarPubMed
Fox, E. (1996). Cross-language priming from ignored words: Evidence from a common representational system in bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuentes, L.J., & Santiago, E. (1999). Spatial and semantic inhibitory processing in schizophrenia. Neuropsychology, 13, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuentes, L.J., & Tudela, P. (1992). Semantic processing of foveally and parafoveally presented words in a lexical decision task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanne, S. (2002). The role of semantic, orthographic, and phonological prime information in unilateral visual neglect. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupiáñez, J., Madrid, E., & Rueda, M.R. (1999). Asimetría en la amplitud perceptual: Implicaciones para la presentación en parafóvea. Estudios de Psicología, 62,101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupiáñez, J., Rueda, M.R., Ruz, M., & Tudela, P. (2000). Processing of attended and ignored words in the parafovea: Inhibitory aspects of semantic processing. Psicologica, 21, 233–256.Google Scholar
MacLeod, C.M., Chiappe, D.L., & Fox, E. (2002). The crucial roles of stimulus matching and stimulus identity in negative priming. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 521–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathews, A., & Mackintosh, B. (1998). A cognitive model of selective processing in anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. (1998). A cognitive-motivational analysis of anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 809–848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mondor, T.A., & Bryden, M.P. (1992). On the relation between visual spatial attention and visual field asymmetries. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44 A, 529–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neely, J.H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In Besner, D. & Humphreys, G.W. (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Öhman, A. (1996). Preferential preattentive processing of threat in anxiety: Preparedness and attentional biases. In Rapee, R.M. (Ed.),Current controversies in anxiety disorders (pp. 253–290). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Öhman, A. (1999). Distinguishing unconscious from conscious emotional processes: Methodological considerations and theoretical implications. In Dalgleish, T. & Power, M. (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 321–352). Chichester, UK: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortells, J.J., Abad, M.J., Noguera, C., & Lupiáñez, J. (2001). Influence of prime-probe stimulus onset asynchronyand prime precuing manipulations on semantic priming effects with words in a lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 75–91.Google Scholar
Ortells, J.J., Tudela, P., Noguera, C., & Abad, M.J. (1998). Attentional orienting within the visual field in a lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1675–1689.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., White, S.J., Kambe, G., Miller, B., & Liversedge, S.P. (2003). On the processing of meaning from parafovealvision during eye fixations in reading. In HyÖnä, J., Radach, R. & Deubel, H. (Eds.), The mind's eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 213–234). Oxford: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M.D. (1998). Running from William James' bear: A review of preattentive mechanisms and their contribution to emotional experience. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 667–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime User's Guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, M.A., Cuetos, F., & Carreiras, M. (1996). LEXESP: Una base de datos informatizada del español. Barcelona, Spain: University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
Wandell, B.A. (1995). Foundations of vision. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Williams, J.M.G., Watts, F.N., MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1997). Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar