English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Using a novel referent size-selection task, MacDonald, Joordens, and Seergobin (1999; MacDonald &amp; Joordens, 2000) found that negative priming persisted even when participants were encouraged to attend to distractors before selectively responding to targets. This finding suggested that negative priming is not caused by processes that operate on stimuli that are to be ignored in the traditional selective attention sense. Mackintosh, Mathews, and Holden's (2002) attempt to replicate the MacDonald et al. study resulted in the discovery of possible artifacts in the referent size-selection task, thereby making the implications with respect to the role of attention less clear. In the present study, we describe a different method for directing attention to distractors in a negative priming context, one that does not suffer from the same potential artifacts as the referent size-selection task. Our results are consistent with those found by MacDonald et al., in that negative priming persisted even when participants were explicitly encouraged to attend to distractors. Implications are discussed in the context of the related concepts of selective attention (e.g., Broadbent, 1965) versus selection for action (e.g., Allport, 1987).

Selective attention versus selection for action: Negative priming is not the result of distractors being unattended