Earlier studies have demonstrated that spatial cueing differentially reduces stimulus–stimulus congruency (e.g., spatial Stroop) interference but not stimulus–response congruency (e.g., Simon; e.g., Lupiáñez & Funes, 2005). This spatial cueing modulation over spatial Stroop seems to be entirely attributable to object-based attention (e.g., Luo, Lupiáñez, Funes, & Fu, 2010). In the present study, two experiments were conducted to further explore whether the cueing modulation of spatial Stroop is object based and/or space based and to analyse the “locus” of this modulation. In Experiment 1, we found that the cueing modulation over spatial Stroop is entirely object based, independent of stimulus–response congruency. In Experiment 2, we observed that the modulation of object-based attention over the spatial Stroop only occurred at a short cue–target interval (i.e., stimulus onset asynchrony; SOA), whereas the stimulus–response congruency effect was not modulated either by object-based or by location-based attentional cueing. The overall pattern of results suggests that the spatial cueing modulation over spatial Stroop arises from object-based attention and occurs at the perceptual stage of processing.
ColzatoL. S.ErasmusV.HommelB. (2004). Moderate alcohol consumption in humans impairs feature binding in visual perception.Neuroscience Letters360, 103–105.
2.
ColzatoL. S.FagioliS.ErasmusV.HommelB. (2005). Caffeine, but not nicotine enhances visual feature binding.European Journal of Neuroscience21, 591–595.
3.
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.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
FunesM. J.LupiáñezJ.MillikenB. (2007). Separate mechanisms recruited by exogenous and endogenous spatial cues: Evidence from a spatial Stroop paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance33, 2348–362.
8.
FunesM. J.LupiáñezJ.MillikenB. (2008). The modulation of exogenous spatial cueing on spatial Stroop interference: Evidence of a set for “cue–target event segregation”.Psicológica29, 65–95.
9.
HommelB. (1993a). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap.Psychological Research55, 280–290.
10.
HommelB. (1993b). The role of attention for the Simon effect.Psychological Research55, 208–222.
11.
HommelB. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes.Visual Cognition5, 1–2183–216.
12.
HommelB. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action.Trends in Cognitive Sciences8, 11494–500.
13.
HommelB. (2005). How much attention does an event file need?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance31, 1067–1082.
14.
IvanoffJ.KleinR. M.LupiáñezJ. (2002). Inhibition of return interacts with the Simon effect: An omnibus analysis and its implications.Perception & Psychophysics64, 318–327.
15.
JonidesJ.YantisS. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention.Perception & Psychophysics43, 346–354.
16.
KahnemanD.TreismanA.GibbsB. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information.Cognitive Psychology24, 175–219.
17.
KornblumS. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop- and Simon-like stimuli.Psychological Research56, 130–135.
18.
KornblumS.LeeJ. W. (1995). Stimulus–response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance21, 855–875.
19.
LuC.-H.ProctorR. W. (1994). Processing of an irrelevant location as a function of relevant stimulus dimension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 286–298.
20.
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.
21.
LuoC.LupiáñezJ.FuX.WengX. (2010). Spatial Stroop and spatial orienting: The role of onset vs. offset cues.Psychological Research74, 277–290.
22.
LuoC.LupiáñezJ.FunesM. J.FuX. (2010). Modulation of spatial Stroop by object-based attention but not by space-based attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology63, 3516–530.
23.
LupiáñezJ. (2010). Inhibition of return.NobreA. C.CoullJ. T.Attention and timeOxford, UK: Oxford University Press17–34.
24.
LupiáñezJ.FunesM. J. (2005). Peripheral spatial cues modulate spatial Stroop interference: Analyzing the “locus” of the cueing modulation.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology17, 727–752.
25.
LupiáñezJ.MillikenB. (1999). Inhibition of return and the attentional set for integrating versus differentiating information.The Journal of General Psychology126, 4392–418.
26.
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.
27.
MatsukuraM.VeceraS. P. (2006). The return of object-based attention: Selection of multiple-region objects.Perception & Psychophysics68, 1163–1175.
28.
O'LearyM.BarberP. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance19, 830–844.
29.
ProctorR. W.LuC. H.Van ZandtT. (1992). Enhancement of the Simon effect by response precuing.Acta Psychologica81, 53–74.
30.
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.
31.
StofferT. H. (1991). Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus–response compatibility.Psychological Research53, 127–135.
32.
TreccaniB.UmiltàC.TagliabueM. (2006). Simon effect with and without awareness of the accessory stimulus.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance32, 268–286.
33.
VerfaellieM.BowersD.HeilmanK. M. (1988). Attentional factors in the occurrence of stimulus–response compatibility effects.Neuropsychologia26, 435–444.
34.
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.
35.
WeeksD. J.ChuaR.HamblinK. (1996). Attention shifts and the Simon effect: A failure to replicate Stoffer (1991).Psychological Research58, 246–253.
36.
YantisS.JonidesJ. (1996). Attentional capture by abrupt onsets: New perceptual objects or visual masking?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance22, 1505–1513.
37.
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.
