Earlier studies have shown that the spatial Stroop effect systematically decreases when a peripheral precue is presented at the same location as the target, compared to an uncued location condition. In this study, two experiments were conducted to explore whether the cueing modulation of spatial Stroop is object based and/or space based. In Experiment 1, we found evidence favouring the view that the cueing modulation of the spatial Stroop effect is entirely object based, as no differences were found in conflict reduction for the same-location and same-object conditions. In Experiment 2, the cue was predictive, and a similar object-based modulation of spatial Stroop was still observed. However, the direction of such modulation was affected by the rectangles’ orientation. Overall, the pattern of results obtained favours the object-integration (Lupiáñez & Milliken, 1999; Lupiáñez, Milliken, Solano, Weaver, & Tipper, 2001) and referential-coding accounts (Danziger, Kingstone, & Ward, 2001) and seems to provide evidence against the attention-shift account (Rubichi, Nicoletti, Iani, & Umilta, 1997; Stoffer, 1991).
AbramsR. A.LawM. B. (2000). Object-based visual attention with endogenous orienting.Perception & Psychophysics62, 818–833.
2.
ChicaA. B.LupiáñezJ.BartolomeoP. (2006). Dissociating inhibition of return from endogenous orienting of spatial attention: Evidence from detection and discrimination tasks.Cognitive Neuropsychology23, 71015–1034.
3.
DanzigerS.KingstoneA. (1999). Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon.Perception & Psychophysics61, 1024–1037.
4.
DanzigerS.KingstoneA.WardR. (2001). Environmentally defined frames of reference: Their sensitivity to spatial cues and attention, and their time course.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance27, 494–503.
5.
EglyR.DriverJ.RafalR. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General123, 161–177.
6.
FunesM. J.LupiáñezJ. (2003). La teoría atencional de Posner: Una tarea para medir las funciones atencionales de orientación, alerta y control cognitivo y la interacción entre ellas [Posner's theory of attention: A task to measure the attentional functions of orienting, alerting and cognitive control and the interactions between them].Psicothema15, 260–266.
7.
FunesM. J.LupiáñezJ.MillikenB. (2005). The role of spatial attention and other processes on the magnitude and time course of cueing effects.Cognitive Processing—International Quarterly of Cognitive Science6, 98–116.
8.
FunesM. J.LupiáñezJMillikenB. (2007). Separate mechanisms recruited by exogenous and endogenous spatial cues: Evidence from a spatial Stroop paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance33, 2348–262.
9.
FunesM. J.LupiáñezJMillikenB. (2008). The modulation of exogenous spatial cueing on spatial Stroop interference: Evidence of a set for “cue-target event segregation”.Psicológica29, 65–95.
10.
GoldsmithM.YeariM. (2003). Modulation of object-based attention by spatial focus under endogenous and exogenous orienting.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance29, 5897–918.
11.
HommelB. (1993a). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap.Psychological Research55, 280–290.
12.
HommelB. (1993b). The role of attention for the Simon effect.Psychological Research55, 208–222.
13.
IvanoffJ.KleinR. M.LupiáñezJ. (2002). Inhibition of return interacts with the Simon effect: An omnibus analysis and its implications.Perception & Psychophysics64, 318–327.
14.
JonidesJ.YantisS. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention.Perception & Psychophysics43, 346–354.
15.
JuolaJ. F.KoshinoH.WarnerC. B. (1995). Tradeoffs between attentional effects of spatial cues and abrupt onsets.Perception and Psychophysics57, 333–342.
16.
KahnemanD.TreismanA.GibbsB. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information.Cognitive Psychology24, 175–219.
17.
KleinR. M.ShoreD. I. (2000). Relations among modes of visual orienting.Attention & Performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes. MonsellS.DriverJ.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press195–208.
18.
LuC.-H.ProctorR. W. (1994). Processing of an irrelevant location as a function of the relevant stimulus dimension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 286–298.
19.
LuC.-H.ProctorR. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon effect and congruency effects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review2, 174–207.
20.
LupiáñezJ.FunesM. J. (2005). Peripheral spatial cues modulate spatial Stroop interference: Analyzing the“locus” of the cueing modulation.European Journal of Experimental Psychology17, 727–752.
21.
LupiáñezJ.MillikenB. (1999). Inhibition of return and the attentional set for integrating versus differentiating information.The Journal of General Psychology126, 4392–418.
22.
LupiáñezJ.MillikenB.SolanoC.WeaverB.TipperS. P. (2001). On the strategic modulation of the time course of facilitation and inhibition of return.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology54, 3753–773.
23.
MacquistanA. D. (1997). Object-based allocation of visual attention in response to exogenous, but not endogenous, spatial precues.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review4, 512–515.
24.
O'LearyM.BarberP. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance19, 830–844.
25.
PrinzmetalW.McCoolC.ParkS. (2005). Attention: Reaction time and accuracy reveal different mechanisms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General134, 173–92.
26.
ProctorR. W.LuC. H.Van ZandtT. (1992). Enhancement of the Simon effect by response precuing.Acta Psychologica81, 53–74.
27.
RubichiS.NicolettiR.IaniC.UmiltaC. (1997). The Simon effect occurs in relation to the direction of an attention shift.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance5, 1353–1364.
28.
RubichiS.VuK.-P. L.NicolettiR.ProctorR. W. (2006). Spatial coding in two dimensions.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review13, 201–216.
StofferT. H. (1991). Attentional focusing and spatial stimulus–response compatibility.Psychological Research53, 127–135.
31.
TaylorT. L.IvanoffJ. (2005). Inhibition of return and repetition priming effects in localization and discrimination tasks.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology59, 75–89.
32.
VerfaellieM.BowersD.HeilmanK. M. (1988). Attentional factors in the occurrence of stimulus–response compatibility effects.Neuropsychologia26, 435–444.
33.
WalleyR. E.McLeodB. E.WeidenT. D. (1994). Increased attention to the irrelevant dimension increases interference in a spatial Stroop task.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology48, 467–492.
34.
WeaverB.LupiáñezJ.WatsonF. L. (1998). The effects of practice on object-based, location-based, and static-display inhibition of return.Perception & Psychophysics60, 993–1003.
35.
WeeksD. J.ChuaR.HamblinK. (1996). Attention shifts and the Simon effect: A failure to replicate Stoffer (1991).Psychological Research58, 246–253.
36.
WuhrP.WaszakF. (2003). Object-based attentional selection can modulate the Stroop effect.Memory & Cognition31, 6983–994.
37.
YantisS.JonidesJ. (1996). Attentional capture by abrupt onsets: New perceptual objects or visual masking?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance22, 1505–1513.
38.
ZimbaL. D.BritoC. F. (1995). Attention precuing and Simon effects: A test of the attention-coding account of the Simon effect.Psychological Research58, 102–118.
