How do selected arrows guide visuospatial attention? Dissociating symbolic value and spatial proximity.

Leblanc, Émilie; Jolicœur, Pierre

doi:10.1037/a0019954

Cited by 5 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(65 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be noted that Leblanc and Jolicoeur (2010) agree with one of Pratt and Hommel's (2003) major tenets that cues that feature overlap with stimulus events held in working memory automatically attract visuospatial attention, even if the overlap refers to a task-irrelevant feature (e.g., if a blue square is held in working memory and shape is the task-relevant feature, the taskirrelevant color will still guide attention). Moreover, Pratt and Hommel's approach by no means denies that this attraction can facilitate the processing of stimuli appearing close to the cue, nor does it claim or imply that the symbolic content of cues must have a stronger impact on attention than proximity has.…”

supporting

confidence: 53%

“…Recently, Leblanc and Jolicoeur (2010) presented a potential problem with the conclusions of Pratt and Hommel (2003). In examining the experimental design of Pratt and Hommel, Leblanc and Jolicoeur noted that the target-colored arrow, which radiated out from fixation along with the other uninformative arrows, was closer in proximity to the peripheral target than the other arrows.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The present experiment attempts to find a common ground between the Pratt and Hommel (2003) and the Leblanc and Jolicoeur (2010) studies by independently manipulating factors that test proximity and symbolic cuing effects. The basic paradigm is similar to the previous studies; participants are given the color of the target they need to find, then two differentially colored cues appear (one on each side of fixation), followed by the peripheral target in one of two possible target locations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Visuospatial attention is guided by both the symbolic value and the spatial proximity of selected arrows.

Pratt

Radulescu²,

Guo³

et al. 2010

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is considerable evidence that overlearned symbols, especially arrows, can orient attention to peripheral locations. In 2003, Pratt and Hommel showed that when 1 arrow is selected from a set of arrows, based on an attentional control setting for a specific target color, the selected arrow determines the orientation of attention. Recently, Leblanc and Jolicoeur (2010) reexamined this finding, and concluded that spatial proximity of the arrow to the target, not the symbolic value of the arrow, determines the orienting of attention. Here, we manipulated both the symbolic value of the cue (direction arrows or directionless circles) and the proximity of the cue to the peripheral target location (near or far), and found that although proximity does play a role in the orienting of attention (larger cuing effects were found with far cues than near cues), the symbolic content of the cue also plays an important role (larger cuing effects were found with arrows than circles). Thus, both the symbolic value and the spatial proximity of cues affect the orienting of attention.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 53%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visuospatial attention is guided by both the symbolic value and the spatial proximity of selected arrows.

Pratt

Radulescu²,

Guo³

et al. 2010

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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).…”

mentioning

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

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

“…Nevertheless, a cueing effect was observed such that responses to targets at locations compatible with the cue were faster than to targets at incompatible locations. Follow-up experiments confirmed that the effect of arrows was not based on volitional shifts of attention [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] (for an elaborate treatment of the role of voluntary control, see [ 4 ]), or the physical properties of the arrow [ 5 , 6 ]. In addition to arrows, a variety of uninformative symbols have been shown to produce visuospatial bias.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implied Spatial Meaning and Visuospatial Bias: Conceptual Processing Influences Processing of Visual Targets and Distractors

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concepts with implicit spatial meaning (e.g., "hat", "boots") can bias visual attention in space. This result is typically found in experiments with a single visual target per trial, which can appear at one of two locations (e.g., above vs. below). Furthermore, the interaction is typically found in the form of speeded responses to targets appearing at the compatible location (e.g., faster responses to a target above fixation, after reading "hat"). It has been argued that these concept-space interactions could also result from experimentally-induced associations between the binary set of locations and the conceptual categories with upward and downward meaning. Thus, rather than reflecting a conceptually driven spatial bias, the effect could reflect a benefit for compatible cue-target sequences that occurs only after target onset. We addressed these concerns by going beyond a binary set of locations and employing a search display consisting of four items (above, below, left, and right). Within each search trial, before performing a visual search task, participants performed a conceptual task involving concepts with implicit upward or downward meaning. The search display, in addition to including a target, could also include a salient distractor. Assuming a conceptually driven visual bias, we expected to observe, first, a benefit for target processing at the compatible location and, second, an increase in the cost of the salient distractor. The findings confirmed both predictions, suggesting that concepts do indeed generate a spatial bias. Finally, results from a control experiment, without the conceptual task, suggest the presence of an axis-specific effect, in addition to the location-specific effect, suggesting that concepts might cause both location-specific and axis-specific spatial bias. Taken together, our findings provide additional support for the involvement of spatial processing in conceptual understanding.

show abstract

How do selected arrows guide visuospatial attention? Dissociating symbolic value and spatial proximity.

Cited by 5 publications

References 28 publications

Visuospatial attention is guided by both the symbolic value and the spatial proximity of selected arrows.

Visuospatial attention is guided by both the symbolic value and the spatial proximity of selected arrows.

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

Implied Spatial Meaning and Visuospatial Bias: Conceptual Processing Influences Processing of Visual Targets and Distractors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About