“…Specifically, anticipatory attentional process might proceed more quickly, efficiently or involuntarily when attentional cues are emotional (for a review of amygdala-based preferential emotional attention from the viewpoint of automatic attention to emotional stimuli, see Pourtois, Schettino, & Vuilleumier, 2013). While the prevailing view on endogenous cueing is that slow, strategic, voluntarily controlled processes underlie attentional orienting when central symbolic cues are used (e.g., Egeth & Yantis, 1997; Müller & Rabbitt, 1989; Posner, 1980), more recent evidence suggests that more “automatic” processes can also give rise or contribute to the endogenous cueing effect (e.g., Bonato, Lisi, Pegoraro, & Pourtois, 2016; Peterson & Gibson, 2011; Risko & Stolz, 2010; see also Bartolomeo, Decaix, & Siéroff, 2007). Specifically, this view assumes that in a typical endogenous cueing paradigm, participants are able to allocate their attention on the basis of implicit learning of cue-dependent target location probabilities, that is, without or independently of conscious effort or awareness of these contingencies, at least if simple central cues are used—such as color cues or cues with intrinsic spatial meaning—because salient cue information might facilitate contingency learning (Bonato et al, 2016; Peterson & Gibson, 2011).…”