Biasing spatial attention with semantic information: an event coding approach

Amer, Tarek; Gozli, Davood; Pratt, Jay

doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0867-5

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most researchers explain spatial interference in terms of perceptual simulation (Barsalou, 1999): The linguistic cue evokes a subconscious mental image of the denoted object or event in its associated location, thereby visually masking (i.e., perceptually competing with) the target stimulus and delaying its identification. Recent alternative accounts have attributed spatial interference to more holistic event simulations (Ostarek & Vigliocco, 2017) or to conflicting semantic and spatial codes (Amer, Gozli, & Pratt, 2017;Estes, Verges, & Adelman, 2015). Estes et al (2008) demonstrated spatial interference three times across three experiments.…”

Section: Replymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Spatial Interference From Linguistic Cues: Beyond Petrova et al. (2018)

Estes

Barsalou

2018

Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Words with spatial associations (e.g., "bird") can hinder identification of an unrelated visual stimulus at the implied location (i.e., at the top of a display). This spatial interference effect has been demonstrated many times by several independent research groups (e.g., Estes, Verges, & Barsalou, 2008), and it fits within the theoretical framework of grounded cognition. Petrova et al. (in-press) reported a series of experiments that varied in similarity to Estes et al. (2008), successfully replicating the spatial interference effect only once, and concluding that the effect is unreliable. Here we report a comprehensive meta-analysis of 37 tests of the spatial interference effect. We show that the effect is moderately large and highly reliable among studies that evoke semantic processing of the linguistic cues and that assess interference at suitably short delays. In conclusion, the spatial interference effect occurs reliably with semantic processing, and varies systematically with temporal and linguistic constraints.

show abstract

Section: Replymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Spatial Interference From Linguistic Cues: Beyond Petrova et al. (2018)

Estes

Barsalou

2018

Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ideomotor theory claims that actions are represented by their perceivable consequences. Put in another way, action selection processes and perceptual processes operate on a shared pool of representations (Amer, Gozli, & Pratt, in press; Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001; Prinz, 1997; Shin, Proctor, & Capaldi, 2010). Consequently, the selection of an action and the perception of an action-congruent stimulus mutually influence each other.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Visuomotor and motorvisual priming with different types of set-level congruency: evidence in support of ideomotor theory, and the planning and control model (PCM)

Thomaschke,

Miall,

Rueß

et al. 2017

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perception can prime action (visuomotor priming), and action can prime perception (motorvisual priming). According to ideomotor theory both effects rely on the overlap of mental representations between perception and action. This implies that both effects get more pronounced the more features they share. We tested this hypothesis by employing in a motorvisual (Exp. 1) and in a visuomotor (Exp. 2) setting, three different pairs of left/right target stimuli (hand pictures, arrows, and words) varying in how strongly they overlap with the pair of left/right responses. For two stimulus pairs (hands and words) the hypothesis was confirmed: hand pictures share more features with the responses than words, consequently hand pictures produced a stronger visuomotor and a stronger motorvisual priming effect than words. However, arrow stimuli showed a different pattern: the temporal dynamics of both priming effects, as well as the direction of the effect seen in motorvisual priming, were significant but opposite to that of the hand and word stimuli. This suggests that the arrows’ representations were not involved in ideomotor processes, and we propose instead that they were represented in a spatial or scalar fashion, outside the representations assumed in ideomotor theory. The results are discussed in the context of ideomotor theory, and the planning and control model of motorvisual priming.

show abstract

“…To illustrate, research has demonstrated that users preferred to devote attention to stimuli that matched a given hypothesis or template, even in the presence of alternate, more optimal strategies [RWP15]. Amer et al [AGP17] designed experiments in which participants were given explicit and implicit spatio-temporal cues in a visual event coding task and found systematic effects of the explicit and implicit cues on users' attention within the visual analytic system and how these cues affected processing of information.…”

Section: Strategy Cues In Psychology Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Effects of Visual Anchors on Decision‐Making about Misinformation

Wesslen

Santhanam

Karduni

et al. 2019

Computer Graphics Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive biases are systematic errors in judgment due to an over‐reliance on rule‐of‐thumb heuristics. Recent research suggests that cognitive biases, like numerical anchoring, transfers to visual analytics in the form of visual anchoring. However, it is unclear how visualization users can be visually anchored and how the anchors affect decision‐making. To investigate, we performed a between‐subjects laboratory experiment with 94 participants to analyze the effects of visual anchors and strategy cues using a visual analytics system. The decision‐making task was to identify misinformation from Twitter news accounts. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions that modified the scenario video (visual anchor) and/or strategy cues provided. Our findings suggest that such interventions affect user activity, speed, confidence, and, under certain circumstances, accuracy. We discuss implications of our results on the forking paths problem and raise concerns on how visualization researchers train users to avoid unintentionally anchoring users and affecting the end result.

show abstract

Biasing spatial attention with semantic information: an event coding approach

Cited by 11 publications

References 86 publications

A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Spatial Interference From Linguistic Cues: Beyond Petrova et al. (2018)

A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Spatial Interference From Linguistic Cues: Beyond Petrova et al. (2018)

Visuomotor and motorvisual priming with different types of set-level congruency: evidence in support of ideomotor theory, and the planning and control model (PCM)

Investigating Effects of Visual Anchors on Decision‐Making about Misinformation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About