Does an experimentally induced self-association elicit affective self-prioritisation?

Self-relevant stimuli such as one's name and face have been demonstrated to influence information processing in both the cognitive and affective domains. It has been observed that recently self-associated stimuli can also influence cognition, but their impact on affect has not been tested yet. In the current study (N = 107), we test whether recently self-associated stimuli yield an affective bias and compare the size of the effect with that of familiar self-associated stimuli. A Recoding-Free Implicit Association Test (IAT-RF) presenting self-associated, neutral object-associated, positive, and negative stimuli was used with two groups: one which categorised familiar words as self- and neutral object-associated stimuli, and a second which categorised recently self- and neutral object-associated geometric shapes. In both cases, response times were faster for congruent trials, which mapped response keys as "positive/self" and "negative/neutral object," than for incongruent trials which mapped response keys as "positive/neutral object" and "negative/self." The size of the effect yielded by familiar and new self-associated stimuli did not differ. This indicates that experimentally induced self-association can immediately yield an affective bias in favour of the self-associated stimulus.

The impact of newly self-associated pictorial and letter-based stimuli in attention holding.

Familiar self-associated stimuli such as one's own name and face are more efficient in guiding attention than other-associated stimuli. Remarkably, a short association of geometric shapes to the self versus others is sufficient to induce prioritization of the self- (vs. other-) associated shape in a matching task. Replications with other tasks measuring different stages of information processing, however, produced mixed results. It thus remains unclear whether the effect can be attributed to the newly associated stimulus alone. Therefore, in Study 1 (N = 28), we implemented the matching task and additionally compared the effectiveness of familiar versus newly self-associated stimuli with that of stranger-related stimuli to hold attention as cues in a dot-probe task. The self and the stranger were either represented by familiar labels ("I" vs. "stranger"), newly associated shapes, or shape-label pairs. In Study 2 (N = 31), participants associated nonwords to themselves and a stranger to compare the attentional impact of familiar and new self-associated letter combinations. Thus, we addressed the potential limitation due to modality present in former studies-which used mostly pictorial stimuli as new representations and letter combinations as familiar representations. Across both studies, in the dot-probe task, responses were faster towards targets following the self-associated stimuli compared with stranger-associated stimuli but only when familiar representations were used. Responses in the matching task were faster when confirming the correct self-associated pair. The results suggest that, under conditions of attentional competition, the prioritization of self-associated compared with other-associated cues does not generalize to newly associated stimuli.

When self-prioritization crosses the senses: Crossmodal self-prioritization demonstrated between vision and touch.

The investigation of self-prioritization via a simple matching paradigm represents a new way of enhancing our knowledge about the processing of self-relevant content and also increases our understanding of the self-concept itself. By associating formerly neutral material with the self, and assessing the resulting prioritization of these newly formed self-associations, conclusions can be drawn concerning the effects of self-relevance without the burden of highly overlearned materials such as one's own name. This approach was used to gain further insights into the structure and complexity of self-associations: a tactile pattern was associated with the self and thereafter, the prioritization of the exact same visual pattern was assessed - enabling the investigation of crossmodal self-associations. The results demonstrate a prioritization of self-associated material that rapidly extends beyond the borders of a sensory modality in which it was first established.

Identity-Based Crossmodal Negative Priming: Aftereffects of Ignoring in One Sensory Modality on Responding to Another Sensory Modality.

Negative Priming (NP) refers to the phenomenon that responses towards previously ignored stimuli, as compared to new stimuli, are impaired. That is, NP is reflected in the performance on the probe display of a prime-probe sequence. NP is established in vision, audition and touch. In the current study, we presented participants with auditory, visual, and tactile manifestations of the same temporal patterns in order to measure NP across the senses. On each trial, the sensory modality shifted from the prime to the probe. Each prime and probe display consisted of a target and a distractor stimulus, presented to the same sensory modality. On some trials, the prime distractor repeated as probe target (ignored-repetition trials), on other trials the probe stimuli had not been involved in the prime display (control trials). We observed NP between audition and touch (Experiment 1) and between vision and audition (Experiment 2). These findings indicate that the processes underpinning NP can operate at an amodal, postperceptual level.

Does Self-Associating a Geometric Shape Immediately Cause Attentional Prioritization?

In many cognitive tasks, stimuli associated with one's self elicit faster responses than stimuli associated with others. This is true for familiar self-representations (e.g., one's own name), for new self-associated stimuli, and for combinations of both. The current research disentangles the potential of self- versus stranger-representations for familiar, new, and paired (familiar + new) stimuli to guide attention. In Study 1 (N = 34), responses to familiar and new self- versus other representations were tested in a dot-probe task with a short stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA; 100 ms). Study 2 (N = 31) and Study 3 (N = 35) use a long SOA (1,000 ms) to test whether the findings are mirrored in inhibition of return (IOR). We observe significant performance differences for targets following self- versus stranger-associated stimuli (i.e., a cuing effect or IOR depending on the SOA length), yet only when familiar representations are present. This indicates that, under conditions of attentional competition between self- and stranger-representations, familiar self-representations impact the distribution of attention while new self-representations alone do not.

Modulations of event-related potentials by tactile negative priming.

Negative priming (NP) refers to the finding that responses to previously irrelevant stimuli are impeded relative to responses to new stimuli. To date, NP has been demonstrated in the visual, auditory, and tactile sensory modalities with both inhibitory processes and retrieval-based processes contributing to the effect. To gain deeper insights into the role of both processes, event-related potentials (ERPs) have been measured during NP tasks with visual and separately with auditory stimuli. The specific patterns of ERP correlates are mixed, yet it can generally be concluded from previous research that amplitudes of both the N2 and the P3 reflect important components of NP. We present the first study to assess the ERP correlates of NP in the tactile modality. We observe a significant modulation of the P3 but not of the N2, thus providing tentative support for the existence of modality-specific differences in the ERP correlates of NP.

Separating after-effects of target and distractor processing in the tactile sensory modality.

The present study investigated the cognitive mechanisms underlying aftereffects of tactile target and distractor processing. In our experiment, participants selected tactile target stimuli against simultaneously presented tactile distractor stimuli in prime-probe sequences. Tactile distractors in each prime/probe trial were either response incompatible (i.e., interfering at the response level) or response neutral (i.e., noninterfering at the response level), manipulated between participants. Furthermore, distractor relation (repetition vs. change) and response relation (repetition vs. change) across prime-probe sequences were orthogonally varied within participants. Thus, independent estimates of distractor repetition main effects (that are attributable to distractor-specific prime processing and have previously been interpreted in terms of inhibition or episodic retrieval processes) and the modulation of distractor repetition effects due to response relation (that is target specific and can only be explained in terms of event-file retrieval) were assessed (see Giesen, Frings, & Rothermund, Memory & Cognition, 40, 373-387, 2012). Replicating previous studies with visual stimuli, simple distractor repetition effects were stronger for response-incompatible compared with response-neutral tactile distractors. In contrast, event-file retrieval as reflected in distractor-response binding retrieval effects was not modulated by whether the distractors were response incompatible or response neutral. Together, these findings highlight that in tactile tasks, prime-distractor and prime-target processing both hold the potential to cause aftereffects during probe performance.

The role of action coordination for prospective memory: Task-interruption demands affect intention realization.

Event-based prospective memory (PM) is the ability to remember to perform an intention in response to an environmental cue. Recent microstructure models postulate four distinguishable stages of successful event-based PM fulfillment. That is, (a) the event must be noticed, (b) the intention must be retrieved, (c) the context must be verified, and (d) the intended action must be coordinated with the demands of any currently ongoing task (e.g., Marsh, Hicks, & Watson, 2002b). Whereas the cognitive processes of Stages 1, 2, and 3 have been studied more or less extensively, little is known about the processes of Stage 4 so far. To fill this gap, the authors manipulated the magnitude of response overlap between the ongoing task and the PM task to isolate Stage-4 processes. Results demonstrate that PM performance improves in the presence versus absence of a response overlap, independent of cue saliency (Experiment 1) and of demands from currently ongoing tasks (Experiment 2). Furthermore, working-memory capacity is associated with PM performance, especially when there is little response overlap (Experiments 2 and 3). Finally, PM performance benefits only from strong response overlap, that is, only when the appropriate ongoing-task and PM response keys were identical (Experiment 4). They conclude that coordinating ongoing-task and PM actions puts cognitive demands on the individual which are distinguishable from the demands imposed by cue-detection and intention-retrieval processes. (PsycINFO Database Record

Self-prioritization in vision, audition, and touch.

To investigate self-prioritization independently of stimulus familiarity, Sui et al. (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 38:1105-1117, 2012. doi: 10.1037/a0029792 ) introduced a new paradigm in which different geometric shapes are arbitrarily associated with self-relevant (e.g., "I") and neutral labels (e.g., "stranger"). It has now been repeatedly demonstrated that in a subsequently presented matching task, this association leads to faster and more accurate verifications of self-relevant shape-label pairings than neutral shape-label pairings. In order to assess whether this self-prioritization effect represents a general selection mechanism in human information processing, we examined whether it is limited to the visual modality. Therefore, besides visual stimuli, auditory and vibrotactile stimuli were also associated either to self-relevant or to neutral labels. The findings demonstrate that self-prioritization represents a general tendency influencing human information processing, one that operates across the senses. Our results also highlight a top-down component to self-prioritization.

Spatial negative priming: In touch, it's all about location.

Spatial negative priming (SNP) refers to the finding that responses to stimuli that are presented from previously ignored locations are slowed relative to responses to stimuli presented from previously unstimulated locations. To date, this effect has been demonstrated in vision, audition, and touch. Importantly, however, the cognitive processes involved differ between vision and audition. Although SNP is attributable to feature mismatch in the auditory modality, it is primarily caused by response inhibition in vision. To date, the locus of SNP in touch has not been established, though recently it has been shown that tactile SNP is not modulated by feature mismatch. Here, we demonstrate that in touch, as compared to vision and audition, SNP is more sensitive to the location features-and not solely to the response and stimulus features. Thus, in stark contrast to identity-based negative priming, in which responses to previously ignored stimuli (based on the stimulus identity) can be explained by the same mechanisms in all three sensory modalities, SNP would appear to be caused by different processes in each sensory modality, thus suggesting that the processing of the spatial properties of distractors is modality-specific.

You can't ignore what you can't separate: the effect of visually induced target-distractor separation on tactile selection.

Research suggests that vision of the body-part that happens to receive a tactile event enhances the processing of this stimulus. However, it would appear that only tactile distractors delivered to visible body-parts are processed up to the level of response selection. Here, we analyze whether vision or higher order cognitive processes influence the processing of tactile distractors. We compared the processing of distractors in a tactile variant of the Eriksen flanker task when the body-parts receiving target and distractor stimuli were separated by different types of barriers. Surprisingly, an impermeable barrier prevented tactile distractors from being processed up to the response level, irrespective of whether the barrier was transparent or opaque. By contrast, when an empty frame was placed between the participant's hands, distractors were processed up to the level of response selection. Hence, higher order cognition (here the visually induced representation of the target-distractor separation) influences the processing of tactile distractors. We discuss these results in the light of related findings from selective reaching experiments as well as in terms of Gestalt grouping.

Vision of embodied rubber hands enhances tactile distractor processing.

Previous research has demonstrated that viewing one's hand can induce tactile response compatibility effects at the hands. Here, we investigated the question of whether vision of one's own hand is actually necessary. The Eriksen flanker task was combined with the rubber hand illusion in order to determine whether tactile distractors presented to the hand would be processed up to the level of response selection when a pair of rubber hands was seen (while one's own hands were not). Our results demonstrate that only if the rubber hands are perceived as belonging to one's own body, is enhanced distractor processing (up to the level of response selection) observed at the hands. In conclusion, vision of a pair of fake hands enhances tactile distractor processing at the hands if, and only if, it happens to be incorporated into the body representation.

Vision affects tactile target and distractor processing even when space is task-irrelevant.

The human brain is adapted to integrate the information from multiple sensory modalities into coherent, robust representations of the objects and events in the external world. A large body of empirical research has demonstrated the ubiquitous nature of the interactions that take place between vision and touch, with the former typically dominating over the latter. Many studies have investigated the influence of visual stimuli on the processing of tactile stimuli (and vice versa). Other studies, meanwhile, have investigated the effect of directing a participant's gaze either toward or else away from the body-part receiving the target tactile stimulation. Other studies, by contrast, have compared performance in those conditions in which the participant's eyes have been open versus closed. We start by reviewing the research that has been published to date demonstrating the influence of vision on the processing of tactile targets, that is, on those stimuli that have to be attended or responded to. We outline that many - but not all - of the visuotactile interactions that have been observed to date may be attributable to the direction of spatial attention. We then move on to focus on the crossmodal influence of vision, as well as of the direction of gaze, on the processing of tactile distractors. We highlight the results of those studies demonstrating the influence of vision, rather than gaze direction (i.e., the direction of overt spatial attention), on tactile distractor processing (e.g., tactile variants of the negative-priming or flanker task). The conclusion is that no matter how vision of a tactile distractor is engaged, the result would appear to be the same, namely that tactile distractors are processed more thoroughly.

When vision influences the invisible distractor: tactile response compatibility effects require vision.

Research on the nature of crossmodal interactions between vision and touch has shown that even task-irrelevant visual information can support the processing of tactile targets. In the present study, we implemented a tactile variant of the Eriksen flanker task to investigate the influences of vision on the processing of tactile distractors. In particular, we analyzed whether the size of the flanker effect at the level of perceptual congruency and at the level of response compatibility would differ as a function of the availability of vision (Experiments 1 and 2). Tactile distractors were processed up to the level of response selection only if visual information was provided (i.e., no flanker effects were observed at the level of response compatibility for blindfolded participants). In Experiment 3, we manipulated whether the part of the body receiving the tactile target or distractor was visible, while the other body part was occluded from view. Flanker effects at the level of response compatibility were observed in both conditions, meaning that vision of either the body part receiving the tactile target or the body part receiving the tactile distractor was sufficient to further the processing of tactile distractors from the level of perceptual congruency to the level of response selection. Taken together, these results suggest that vision modulates tactile distractor processing because it results in the processing of tactile distractors up to the level of response selection.