Symbolic control of visual attention: Semantic constraints on the spatial distribution of attention

Gibson, Bradley S.; Scheutz, Matthias; Davis, Gregory J.

doi:10.3758/app.71.2.363

Cited by 16 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future research could investigate whether these block effects can be attributed to some extraneous factor, like semantic satiation (Smith & Klein, 1990). However, the magnitude of the cued axis effect has not been shown to decrease across blocks when cue processing is mandatory (e.g., Gibson et al, 2009); thus, it is likely that this gradual decrease in evidence for cue processing across blocks reflects a change in observers' incentive to voluntarily comprehend the cues and use them to orient their attention. The present findings have several important implications for other findings reported in the literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, spatial words such as above and below can be comprehended faster than spatial words such as left or right because the vertical axis of space can be accessed prior to the horizontal axis of space during the process of cue comprehension (Logan, 1995). In contrast, the comprehension of other spatial symbols such as arrows and eye gaze do not appear to be marked by the cued axis effect, presumably because they require a less effortful and more basic form of processing (Gibson & Kingstone, 2006;Gibson, Scheutz, & Davis, 2009). Based on these findings, Davis and Gibson (2012) focused exclusively on spatial word cues and used the presence versus absence of the cued axis effect to measure the presence versus absence of voluntary symbolic control, respectively.…”

Section: Abstract Spatial Attention Spatial Cuing Symbolic Attentimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

High spatial validity is not sufficient to elicit voluntary shifts of attention

Pauszek

Gibson

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research suggests that the use of valid symbolic cues is sufficient to elicit voluntary shifts of attention. The present study interpreted this previous research within a broader theoretical context which contends that observers will voluntarily use symbolic cues to orient their attention in space when the temporal costs of using the cues are perceived to be less than the temporal costs of searching without the aid of the cues. In this view, previous research has not addressed the sufficiency of valid symbolic cues, because the temporal cost of using the cues is usually incurred before the target display appears. To address this concern, 70%-valid spatial word cues were presented simultaneously with a search display. In addition, other research suggests that opposing cuedependent and cue-independent spatial biases may operate in these studies and alter standard measures of orienting. After identifying and controlling these opposing spatial biases, the results of two experiments showed that the word cues did not elicit voluntary shifts of attention when the search task was relatively easy but did when the search task was relatively difficult. Moreover, the findings also showed that voluntary use of the word cues changed over the course of the experiment when the task was difficult, presumably because the temporal cost of searching without the cue lessened as the task got easier with practice. Altogether, the present findings suggested that the factors underlying voluntary control are multifaceted and contextual, and that spatial validity alone is not sufficient to elicit voluntary shifts of attention. Keywords Spatial attention . Spatial cuing, Symbolic attention control . Voluntary attention controlSpatial symbols are often used to elicit voluntary shifts of attention in the laboratory, though these symbols may also elicit involuntary (or automated) shifts of attention (Friesen & Kingstone, 1998;Friesen, Ristic, & Kingstone, 2004;Gibson & Bryant, 2005;Ho & Spence, 2006;Hommel, Pratt, Colzato, & Godijn, 2001;Jonides, 1981;Leblanc & Jolicoeur, 2010;Pratt, Radulescu, Guo, & Hommel, 2010;Ristic, Friesen, & Kingstone, 2002;Ristic & Kingstone, 2006Tipples, 2002Tipples, , 2008. For the past 30 years, the primary tool used to study attentional shifts in response to such symbolic cues has been the spatial cuing paradigm (Posner, 1980;Posner, Snyder, & Davidson, 1980). In this paradigm, observers are shown visual displays and are required to detect, discriminate, or identify some target stimulus presented in their periphery while keeping their eyes fixated on a central location. To aid in their search for the target, a symbolic cue is often shown at fixation, which correctly identifies the location of the target on some trials (i.e., valid trials) but not on others (i.e., invalid trials). In most variations of the spatial cuing paradigm, there is only one target present in each display, accompanied by visually similar nontarget distractors. Under these conditions, observers can choose to use the cue to l...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Abstract Spatial Attention Spatial Cuing Symbolic Attentimentioning

confidence: 99%

High spatial validity is not sufficient to elicit voluntary shifts of attention

Pauszek

Gibson

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using the spatial cuing tasks depicted in Fig. 1b and c, Gibson and Kingstone showed that this effect manifests as faster RTs when the spatial word cues BAboveô r BBelow^are used, relative to when the spatial word cues BLeft^or BRight^are used (see also Gibson et al, 2009;Kemmerer, 2006;Logan, 1995). As we previously alluded to, the comprehension of relatively easy-to-comprehend arrow cues do not require the computation of spatial reference frame parameters.…”

Section: The Cued Axis Effectmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…For instance, the comprehension of spatial word cues is thought to require the computation of spatial reference frame parameters, thus making them relatively more effortful and time-consuming to process and use; arrow cues, on the other hand, are not thought to require these computations, thus making them relatively less effortful and timeconsuming to process and use (Gibson & Kingstone, 2006;Gibson, Scheutz, & Davis, 2009;Logan, 1995). Using the spatial cuing tasks depicted in Fig.…”

Section: The Cue Type Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk for psychological research on the symbolic control of attention

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of online crowdsourcing services like Amazon's Mechanical Turk (AMT) as a method of collecting behavioral data online has become increasingly popular in recent years. A growing body of contemporary research has empirically validated the use of AMT as a tool in psychological research by replicating a wide range of well-established effects that have been previously reported in controlled laboratory studies. However, the potential for AMT to be used to conduct spatial cuing experiments has yet to be investigated in depth. Spatial cuing tasks are typically very basic in terms of their stimulus complexity and experimental testing procedures, thus making them ideal for remote testing online that requires minimal task instruction. Studies employing the spatial cuing paradigm are typically aimed at unveiling novel facets of the symbolic control of attention, which occurs whenever observers orient their attention through space in accordance with the meaning of a spatial cue. Ultimately, the present study empirically validated the use of AMT to study the symbolic control of attention by successfully replicating four hallmark effects reported throughout the visual attention literature: the left/right advantage, cue type effect, cued axis effect, and cued endpoint effect. Various recommendations for future endeavors using AMT as a means of remotely collecting behavioral data online are also provided. In sum, the present study provides a crucial first step toward establishing a novel tool for conducting psychological research that can be used to expedite not only our own scientific contributions, but also those of our colleagues.

show abstract

Cognitive Science of Attention: Current Concepts and Approaches

Cohen

2013

The Neuropsychology of Attention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Symbolic control of visual attention: Semantic constraints on the spatial distribution of attention

Cited by 16 publications

References 41 publications

High spatial validity is not sufficient to elicit voluntary shifts of attention

High spatial validity is not sufficient to elicit voluntary shifts of attention

Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk for psychological research on the symbolic control of attention

Cognitive Science of Attention: Current Concepts and Approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About