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

Abstract

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.

Saccade trajectories reveal dynamic interactions of semantic and spatial information during the processing of implicitly spatial words.

“…Several subsequent studies observed facilitation instead of interference for targets in compatible location using very similar paradigms (Dudschig, Lachmair, de la Vega, De Filippis, & Kaup, 2012;Gozli, Chasteen, & Pratt, 2013;Gozli, Pratt, Martin, & Chasteen, 2016;Zhang et al, 2013). In a series of experiments, Gozli et al (2013) singled out the factors driving the direction of the effect and concluded that interference is likely to be observed at short stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) between cue words and targets (Ͻ400 ms) and when discrimination (as opposed to detection) tasks are used, whereas facilitation is typically obtained at longer SOAs or when detection tasks are used.…”

Remembering spatial words: Sensorimotor simulation affects verbal recognition memory

“…Words with spatial associations can also guide visual attention to an associated location (i.e., a conceptual cueing effect ). For instance, words such as bird or hero can orient attention upwards, whereas words such as root or liar can orient attention downwards (Amer et al, 2018; Dudschig et al, 2013; Estes et al, 2015; Gozli et al, 2016). Such attentional bias has been found to interfere with visual perception at an associated location and thus, counterintuitively, hinders identification of visual targets.…”