Grabbing attention without knowing: Automatic capture of attention by subliminal spatial cues

Abstract

Theeuwes, J. (2007). Grabbing attention without knowing: Automatic capture of attention by subliminal spatial cues. Visual Cognition, 15(7), 779-788. AbstractThe present study shows that an abrupt onset cue that is not consciously perceived can cause attentional facilitation followed by inhibition at the cued location. The observation of this classic biphasic effect of facilitation followed by inhibition of return (IOR) suggests that the subliminal cue captured attention in a purely exogenous way. Since IOR is not observed following endogenous shifts of spatial attention, but is observed following exogenous, stimulus-driven shifts of spatial attention, it is unlikely that top-down control settings or other non-attentional effects played a role. The current findings are interpreted in terms of a neurobiological model of visual awareness.

Stimulus-driven attentional capture by subliminal onset cues

“…Even though the debate of whether clearly visible (i.e., supraliminal) onset cues capture attention in a stimulusdriven way is still unresolved (see Theeuwes, 2010), more recent work has made the claim that onset cues that are presented subliminally should at least be considered to be stimulus-driven as the observer is not aware that such a cue was presented in the first place (McCormick, 1997;Mulckhuyse, Talsma, & Theeuwes, 2007). A stimulus is considered to be subliminal when the observer is not aware of this stimulus.…”

“…First, in the study by Mulckhuyse et al (2007), as well as in subsequent research (e.g., Fuchs et al, 2013), the target was always a singleton, implying that it was a unique element among the background of placeholders. For example, the target in Mulckhuyse et al (2007) was a single small disk.…”

“…First, in the study by Mulckhuyse et al (2007), as well as in subsequent research (e.g., Fuchs et al, 2013), the target was always a singleton, implying that it was a unique element among the background of placeholders. For example, the target in Mulckhuyse et al (2007) was a single small disk. In this situation, in order to find the target, participants may have searched actively for any singleton, implying that the subliminal singleton onset cue could have captured attention in a top-down contingent rather than a stimulus-driven fashion (Bacon & Egeth, 1994;Held, Ansorge, & Müller, 2010;Leber & Egeth, 2006).…”

“…However, even these experiments are not entirely conclusive. Fuchs and Ansorge (2012b), for instance, adapted the subliminal cueing paradigm of Mulckhuyse et al (2007) and instructed the participants in their Experiment 4 to search for a color target (e.g., blue target) that was presented along with two differently colored distractors (e.g., green and red distractor if the target was blue). The target appeared either on the left or right side while the two other colored distractors appeared at fixation and at the location opposite of that of the target.…”

“…A stimulus is considered to be subliminal when the observer is not aware of this stimulus. For example, in Mulckhuyse et al (2007) one black disk was presented as a single abrupt onset cue in the periphery, either to the right or to the left of the center of a computer screen. Immediately after this cue [with a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of 16 ms], two other black disks were shown as placeholders: one in the center of the screen and one on the opposite side of the cue.…”