Temporal attention

Abstract

Attention, that is, the ability to focus processing resources on a specific part of sensory input, is often thought of as being mainly allocated in space, toward specific objects or modalities. However, attention can also be allocated within time. Temporal attention can be induced implicitly, that is, through learning of temporal regularities between at least two events, or explicitly, by the active instruction to attend to a specific time point. Moreover, temporal attention can be induced via external rhythmic stimulation. Many studies throughout the last 120 years have shown that, irrespective of the way temporal attention is induced, it facilitates processing of upcoming events. Based on early findings measuring reaction time, researchers initially assumed that temporal attention primarily accelerates motor processing. Within the last 20 years, however, more and more evidence has emerged supporting the view that temporal attention facilitates perceptual processing. Moreover, temporal attention may even interact with other attentional domains such as spatial attention or feature-based attention. In the present article, we summarize classical as well as current findings and theoretical accounts on how temporal attention affects perceptual processing. Furthermore, we sketch current challenges and open questions in research on temporal attention.

Unifying temporal preparation: The temporal preparation task (TEP-Task)

“…It is well-established that target detection is faster when the timing of target onset can be anticipated. The benefits of temporal preparation on motor response have been demonstrated across various experimental protocols including foreperiod tasks, temporal orienting tasks, and rhythmic tasks (Capizzi & Correa, 2018;Seibold et al, 2023). Despite these tasks sharing a similar basic structure, where either a single warning signal/cue or a sequence of events helps anticipate the timing of target onset, temporal preparation is not a unitary construct (Nobre & van Ede, 2018).…”

Attention to space and time: Independent or interactive systems? A narrative review

“…These factors include the symbolic nature of the spatiotemporal cues (Olk, 2014 ), the use of static or moving cues to endogenously orient attention to space and/or time (Doherty et al, 2005 ), or the specific SOA probability distribution employed in a block (Tal-Perry & Yuval-Greenberg, 2022 ). Coupled with task demands and attentional manipulations, these methodological aspects should be carefully considered when combining spatial and temporal attention in a single paradigm (see also Seibold et al, 2023 ). It is also worth mentioning that once more data from studies of spatial and temporal attention become available, quantitative meta-analysis could assist in resolving some of the inconsistencies observed in the literature.…”

“…As an example, the term endogenous (as well as related terms like “voluntary” or “volitional”) have been often used for task designs in which the SOA probability distribution of target onset changes between participants (hereafter referred to as “mixed designs”; e.g., Gabay & Henik, 2008 ; Milliken et al, 2003 ). Because participants are uninformed about the specific SOA probability distribution, temporal expectations gradually build up through experience with the probabilistic structure of the task, thus differing from the endogenous temporal expectations elicited by symbolic cues on a trial-by-trial basis (e.g., Capizzi et al, 2012 ; Duma, Granziol, & Mento, 2020 ; Nobre, 2010 ; Tal-Perry & Yuval-Greenberg, 2022 ; Visalli et al, 2021 , 2023 ).…”

“…As detailed below, there are different ways to deploy attention to space and time (Capizzi & Correa, 2018 ; Chica et al, 2013 ; Seibold et al, 2023 ). Such heterogeneity is also reflected at the conceptual level with similar terms often referring to different theoretical constructs and task manipulations.…”