Here we have designed a study that examines both RT to detect a target and the perceived onset time of a target to test predictions based on the traditional attention account as well as the three alternative explanations for cueing effects described above. First, we will outline the predictions for RT. We examine RTs to targets that
follow a cue on the same side or the opposite side (precues), targets that
precede a cue on the same or the opposite side (postcues), and targets alone (no cue). The accounts of cueing reviewed above make different predictions about the pattern of results we should obtain in this experiment, which are illustrated in
Figure 1, left side. An attention-based account (here referred to as the traditional attention account) predicts that RTs to targets appearing after a same-side precue should have the fastest RTs, and targets appearing after an opposite-side precue should have the slowest RTs because attention is misdirected to the cue. No-cue and postcue conditions should produce similar RTs, intermediate between same side and opposite side precue RTs (
Figure 1, top panel, left). Under both the sensory enhancement (Wright,
1994) and response inhibition (Albares et al.
2011) accounts, no-cue trials and postcue trials should produce the slowest RTs because no sensory enhancement or disinhibition of responses is elicited by the cue in these conditions (
Figure 1, middle, left). Opposite-side precues could facilitate RT through a nonspatial enhancement of sensory processing or a general inhibition of all motor responses, and same-side cues could provide a more spatially specific sensory or response-related enhancement as observed by Wright (
1994) and Albares et al. (
2011). Finally, under the perceptual merging account, precues should produce the well-established cueing effect as described above. In the postcue condition, on the other hand, feed-forward processing will be initiated by the target, but by the time reentrant processing begins, the target has been replaced by the cue, which could interfere with target processing and slow responses (similar to object substitution masking, Di Lollo et al.,
2000). Under perceptual merging, therefore, RTs to targets appearing in the same location as the postcue should be slower than to targets appearing in the opposite location (
Figure 1, bottom panel, left).