Attentional Priority for Temporary Goals: Evidence With a Confound-Free Dot-Probe Task

Numerous studies using the dot-probe task showed that stimuli associated with current goals (induced by instructions) are attentionally prioritized despite not sharing features with the search targets. However, the exact nature of this prioritization remains unclear. Because these studies employed a target location task, results can be interpreted both in terms of spatial attention and response-related processes; the target discrimination task - in contrast - allows unambiguous interpretation of effects in terms of spatial attention. In order to disentangle the mechanisms underlying prioritization of goal-related stimuli, we conducted two experiments. In Experiment 1, we replicated the original results of previous studies using the location task. In Experiment 2, we found a corresponding effect in the discrimination task, which provides an unambiguous interpretation of stimuli associated with current goals being prioritized with respect to spatial attention. A cross-experiment analysis indicates that the effect found with the discrimination task was significantly smaller than the one found with the location task. The reduced effect size in the discrimination task suggests that in the original experiments, response-related processes were at play in addition to attentional processes. Furthermore, the task manipulation partly clarified a surprising result found with the location task in previous studies and in Experiment 1: Threat-related stimuli showed no cueing effects if contrasted with neutral stimuli. In Experiment 2 (discrimination task), however, we found a negatively signed effect, a finding that could indicate attentional avoidance of threatening stimuli.