Thirdly, other variables may affect the results in target-cue procedures.
Response-locked ERP showed that both deceptive conditions in cue-target and target-cue procedures elicited medial frontal negativities.
ERP waveforms of deceptive conditions in both cue-target and target-cue procedures showed distinct medial frontal negativity components.
The cue-target procedure elicited a more negative ERP deflection between 40 ms and 90 ms over the central-frontal scalp regions than target-cue procedures.
The cue-target procedure elicited a more negative ERP deflection between 40 ms and 90 ms over the central-frontal scalp regions than the target-cue procedures.
Medial frontal negativity was observed at 40-90 ms after the response in deceptive conditions in both cue-target and target-cue procedures.
In the deceptive condition of cue-target procedure, sources were identified in three clusters;, while in target-cue procedures, only one cluster was found.
In addition, no significant difference was found between the deceptive conditions in cue-target and target-cue procedures; but the difference between these two conditions was found in ERP results.
Peak latencies were also compared between deceptive conditions in cue-target and target-cue procedures, however, no significant difference was found in peak latencies between these two procedures [ F 2,30) = 1.021, p > 0.05].
Numerous studies have used attentional cueing procedures, where symbolic attentional precues such as left-pointing and right-pointing arrows presented at the start of each trial instruct participants to shift their attentional focus covertly (that is, without moving their eyes) towards a cued location in anticipation of task-relevant visual events.
In two experiments, it was investigated whether masked semantic priming effects can be modulated by temporal attention to the prime using a cueing procedure.
