Against a role for attentional disengagement in the gap effect: A friendly amendment to Tam and Stelmach (1993)

22Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Saccadic reaction time (RT) is reduced when the fixation point is removed shortly before target onset. Although Tam and Stelmach (1993) argued that this gap effect could not be explained solely by the idea that fixation offset disengaged visual attention and preferred an explanation based on disengagement of the oculomotor system, they felt that they could not rule out a hybrid model in which both oculomotor and attentional disengagement contribute to the gap effect. Our analysis of the dual response experiment (Experiment 4), upon which this hybrid model was based, shows that manual and saccadic responses were likely compromised by a grouping or delay strategy and that subjects may not have been attending as instructed. On these grounds, we argue that Tam and Stelmach (1993), like Kingstone and Klein (1990; 1993a) provide no evidence that attentional disengagement contributes to the gap effect. An alternative proposal (Klein & Kingstone, 1993), that motor preparation and oculomotor disengagement combine additively to produce the gap effect, is consistent with the data from Tam and Stelmach's Experiments 1-3, is similar to the explanation that they prefer, and has been strongly supported when directly tested (Kingstone, Klein, & Taylor, 1994). © 1995 Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Klein, R. M., Taylor, T. L., & Kingstone, A. (1995). Against a role for attentional disengagement in the gap effect: A friendly amendment to Tam and Stelmach (1993). Perception & Psychophysics, 57(4), 573–577. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213082

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free