En el presente artículo se desvela una forma de razonar que ha estado permanentemente presente en el estudio de la atención y, más concretamente, en la detección de procesos que son realizados con la participación de la atención. Normalmente se ha asumido que ciertos indicadores lo son de la atención, pero después se ha aceptado su no observación como indicador de la no participación de la atención, cometiendo un error lógico de negación del antecedente. Se identifican varias formas en las que se ha aplicado esta falacia y se discute, en particular, si el Efecto de Compatibilidad de los Flancos, desarrollado por Charles W. Eriksen, es un nuevo ejemplo de lo mismo o podría considerarse un indicador adecuado.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllportD. A. (1977). On Knowing the meaning of words we are unable to report the effects of visual masking.DornicEn S. (Ed.), Attention and Performance VI.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
BarriopedroM. I. (1995). La distribución de la atención en el campo visual: nueva evidencia a favor del modelo del zoom. Tesis doctoral no publicada. Facultad de Psicología. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
3.
BotellaJ. (1982). Elicitación y Habituación del reflejo de orientación.Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 37, 85–103.
4.
BroadbentD. E. (1958). Perception and Communication.Londres: Pergamon Press.
5.
CherryE. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech with one and two ears.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 957–979.
6.
CorteenR. S.DunnD. (1974). Shock associated words in a non-attended message: a test for momentary awareness.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 1143–1144.
7.
CorteenR. S.WoodB. (1972). Autonomic responses to shock associated words.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 308–313.
8.
DeutschJ. A.DeutschD. (1967). Comments on selective attention: perception or response.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 362–363.
9.
DixonN. F. (1981). Preconscious processing.Londres: John Wiley.
10.
DriverJ.TipperS. P. (1989). On the nonselectivity of ‘selective’ seeing: Contrasts between interference and priming in selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 304–314.
11.
DuncanJ. (1980). The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli.Psychological Review, 87, 272–300. [Traducido en Estudios de Psicología, 1, 1981].
12.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.
13.
EriksenC. W.PanK.BotellaJ. (1993). Attentional distribution in visual space.Psychological Research, 56, 5–13.
14.
EriksenC. W.St JamesJ. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoomlens model.Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225–240.
15.
EriksenC. W.WebbJ. W.FournierL. R. (1990). How much processing do nonattended stimuli receive? Apparently very little, but.Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 477–488.
16.
FoxE. (1995a). Negative Priming from ignored distractors in visual selection: A review.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2 (2), 145–173.
17.
FoxE. (1995b). Pre-cueing target location reduces interference but not negative priming from visual distractors.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 26–40.
18.
FroufeM. (1996). El inconsciente cognitivo.Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
19.
FuentesL. J.TudelaP. (1992). Semantic processing of foveally and parafoveally presented words in a lexical decision task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 299–322.
20.
GarnerW. R.HakeH. W.EriksenC. W. (1956). Operationism and the concept of perception.Psychological Review, 63 (3), 149–159.
21.
HenleyS. H. A. (1976). Responses to homophones as a function of cue words on the unattended channel.British Journal of Psychology, 67 (4), 559–567.
22.
HughesH. C.ZimbaL. D. (1985). Spatial maps of directed visual attention.Journal of experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 409–430.
23.
HughesH. C.ZimbaL. D. (1987). Natural boundaries for the spatial spread of directed visual attention.Neuropsychology, 25, 5–18.
24.
InhoffA. W.TopolskiR. (1992). Lack of semantic activation from unattended text during passage reading.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30 (5), 365–366.
25.
JamesW. (1890). Principles of Psychology. Nueva York: Holt. {trad. Principios de Psicología. Fondo de Cultura Económica. México, 1989}.
26.
JohnstonW. A.DarkV. J. (1982). In defense of intraperceptual theories of attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 407–421.
27.
JohnstonW. A.DarkV. J. (1986). Selective Attention.Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 43–75.
28.
JohnstonW. A.WilsonJ. (1980). Perceptual processing of nontargets in an attention task.Memory & Cognition, 8 (4), 372–377.
29.
JohnstonW. A.SchwartingI. S.HawleyK. J. (1995). Novel pop-out, perceptual inhibition, and the stability-plasticity dilemma.KramerEn A. F.ColesM. G. H.LoganG. D. (Eds.), Converging Operations in the Study of Visual Selective Attention.Washington, APA.
30.
LewisJ. L. (1970). Semantic processing of unattended messages during dichotic listening.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 85, 225–228.
31.
LuC.-H.ProctorR. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2 (2), 174–207.
32.
MackayD. G. (1973). Aspects of the Theory of comprehension, memory and attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 22–40.
33.
McleodC. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.Psychological Bulletin, 109 (2), 163–203.
34.
MillerJ. (1987). Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters.Perception & Psychophysics, 41 (5), 419–434.
35.
MillerJ. (1991). The flanker compatibility effect as a function of visual angle, attention focus, visual transients, and perceptual load: A search for boundary conditions.Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 270–288.
36.
MorayN. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: affective cues and the influence of instructions.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 56–60.
37.
MurphyT. D.EriksenC. W. (1987). Temporal changes in the distribution of attention in the visual field in response to precues.Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 576–586.
38.
NavonD. (1977). Forest before trees: the precedence of global features in visual perception.Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.
39.
OrtellsJ. J.FuentesL. J. (1992). La tarea de seguimiento en el estudio de la atención selectiva.Estudios de Psicología, 48, 135–143.
40.
PanK.EriksenC. W. (1993). Attentional distribution in the visual field during same-different judgments as assessed by response competition. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 134–144.
41.
PosnerM. I. (1980). Orienting of Attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.
42.
ReingoldE. M.MerikleP. M. (1988). Using direct and indirect measures to study perception without awareness.Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 563–575.
43.
ReingoldE. M.MerikleP. M. (1990). On the inter-relatedness of theory and measurement in the study of unconscious processes.Mind & Language, 5, 9–28.
44.
Rodríguez-fornellsA. (1996). Efectos electrofisiológicos y cronométricos de la impulsividad en la preparación e inhibición de respuestas. Tesis doctoral no publicada. Universidad de Barcelona.
45.
Ruiz-VargasJ. M.BotellaJ. (1981). Limitaciones de capacidad y selectividad atencional.Estudios de Psicología, 7, 30–41.
46.
ShiffrinR. M.DillerD.CohenA. (1995). Processing visual information in an unattended location.KramerEn A. F.ColesM. G. H.LoganG. D. (Eds.), Converging Operations in the Study of Visual Selective Attention.Washington: APA.
47.
SimonJ. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing.ProctorEn R. W.ReeveT. G. (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective.Amsterdam: North-Holland.
48.
TipperS. P.DriverJ. (1988). Negative priming between pictures and words in a selective attention task: Evidence for semantic processing of ignored stimuli.Memory and Cognition, 16 (1), 64–70.
49.
TreismanA. M. (1960). Contextual cues in selective listening.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 242–248.
50.
TreismanA. M.GeffenG. (1967). Selective attention: perception or response?.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 1–17.
51.
TreismanA. M.RileyJ. G. A. (1969). Is selective attention selective perception or selective response: a further test.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 27–34.
52.
TreismanA. M.SquireR.GreenJ. (1974). Semantic processing in dichotic listening? A replication.Memory and Cognition, 2, 641–646.
53.
TudelaP. (1989). Atentión. EnTrespalaciosJ. L.Tudela:P.Percepción y atención. En MayorJ.PinillosJ. L. (Dirs.), Tratado de Psicología General, Vol. 3. Madrid: Alhambra.
54.
UnderwoodG. (1976). Semantic interference from unattended printed words.British Journal of Psychology, 67, 327–338.
55.
VanDERHeijdenA. H. C. (1992). Selective Attention in Vision.Londres: Routledge.
56.
Von WrightJ. M.AndersonK.StenmannU. (1975). Generalization of conditioned GSR's in dichotic listening. En RabbittP. M. A.DornicS. (Eds.), Attention and Performance V. Nueva York: Academic Press.
