Is attention really biased toward the last target location in visual search? Attention, response rules, distractors, and eye movements

Abstract

The visual search and target-target cueing literatures have reached opposite conclusions about whether a shift of attention is biased toward or away from, respectively, previously attended target locations. In this article, we aimed to figure out why. The main differences between the two experimental approaches concern (1) the stimulus-response translation rules (Bwhat^identification keypresses vs. Bwhere^localization responses), (2) the amount of attention required in order to identify the target, and (3) distractor presence or absence. Experiment 1 tested the role of stimulus-response translation rules by requiring both an eye movement Bwhere^response and a keypress Bwhat^response to each target, in a typical search paradigm. Eye movements showed a bias away from the vicinity of the previous target, whereas keypresses showed a bias toward the previous target location, but only when the keypress response repeated. Experiment 2 removed the keypress identification requirement, to test whether reducing the amount of attention to the target would alter the eye movement bias; it did not. Experiment 3 removed the distractors, to test whether eliminating the potential for distractor location effects would alter the eye movement bias; it did, by accentuating the eye movement bias against the last target location. Collectively, the findings revealed that different stimulusresponse translation rules and distractor-processing requirements are the main reasons for the discrepancy, while demonstrating that shifts of attention intrinsically tend away from prior target locations. The findings are generally consistent with episodicretrieval and inhibited spatial-reorienting theories.

When do response-related episodic retrieval effects co-occur with inhibition of return?

“…Fifth, color priming effects (i.e., effects of repeating colors) in these experiments were weak to non-existent (though generally positive), including in the procedures of Experiment 1 in which attention to color was unambiguously necessary to respond appropriately (though not necessarily to plan the response). These findings are consistent with the literature, as it is known that the advantage for repeating the target color is usually only robust when the target is accompanied by visual distractors, such that attention to color becomes useful or indispensable for finding the target (e.g., Goolsby & Suzuki, 2001;Hilchey, Antinucci, Lamy & Pratt, 2019;Huffman & Pratt, 2017;Milliken, Joordens, Merikle, & Seiffert, 1998;Yashar, White, Fang & Carrasco, 2017). Given that Experiment 1 demonstrates that attention to the target color after it has been found does not result in robust color priming effects, our suspicion is that attention to color generally is not sufficient for color priming.…”

“…Third, we wish to reiterate that the kind of visuomotor repetition effect (the PRC, more specifically) that is shown here is not related to the efficiency of target detection, the initial exogenous or endogenous shift of attention to a target location, or to visual search at all, as shown elsewhere (e.g., Hilchey, Antinucci, Lamy & Pratt, 2019;Hilchey, Rajsic, Huffman, Klein & Pratt, 2018;Hilchey, Rajsic, Huffman & Pratt, 2017b;Zehetleitner, Rangelov & Muller, 2012). The effects occur after an initial shift of attention toward a stimulus.…”

“…Broadly speaking, chronometric studies show that the stimulus-response selection demands determine polarity shifts (i.e., whether benefits or costs are found; see e.g., Adam & Pratt, 2004;Christie & Klein, 2001;Coward, Poliakoff, O'Boyle and Lowe, 2004;Dukewich, 2009;Eng et al, 2017;Guy, Buckolz & Pratt, 2004;Hilchey, Klein & Satel, 2014;Hommel, 1998;2007;Ivanoff & Klein, 2004;Kingstone & Pratt, 1999;Klein et al, 2015;Lupianez & Milliken, 1999;Lupianez, Ruz, Funes & Milliken, 2007;Lupianez, Martin-Arevalo, & Chica, 2013;MacInnes, Kruger & Hunt, 2015;Martin-Arevalo, Chica & Lupianez, 2016;Pratt & Abrams, 1999;Pratt, Adam & O'Donnell, 2005;Prime, Visser & Ward, 2006;Prime & Jolicoeur, 2009a;2009b;Taylor & Donnelley, 2002;Tanaka & Shimojo, 1996;2000;Terry, Valdes & Neill, 1994;Welsh & Pratt, 2006; see Christie & Klein, 2008;D'Angelo, Thomson, Tipper & Milliken, 2016;Frings, Schneider & Fox, 2015;Klein, 2004;Klein & Redden, 2018;Lupianez, 2010, for reviews). For example, in some of our recent studies, we instructed people to make eye movements to sequentially presented stimuli before identifying their shapes with keypress responses (e.g., Hilchey, Antinucci, Lamy & Pratt, 2019;Hilchey, Rajsic, Huffman, Klein & Pratt, 2018). On the one hand, we found that eye movements were slower when the target location repeated relative to when it appeared elsewhere.…”

Research thematic and emerging trends of contextual cues: a bibliometrics and visualization approach

“…Despite extensive research in recent years on the concepts of contextual cues in psychology and neuroscience, systematic explanation of the concepts in consumer behavior is lacking. Thus, based on the results of multidisciplinary research in psychology and psychiatry, this study assigns individuals' attention distribution when facing multisource information interference (Fortenbaugh et al , 2017), visual search positioning (Hilchey et al , 2019), emotional semantic understanding (Hou and Lu, 2018), and the process of continuous expectation are defined as contextual cue effects. Reportedly, contextual cues can activate individual spontaneous memory (Sonne et al , 2019), which implies that once consumers are deeply impressed with the contextual cues of a brand or business, they can be engraved in the subconscious mind of consumers.…”

“…In recent years, the research on contextual cue effects has also garnered considerable attention of scholars. The research findings have been used in visual search (Hilchey et al , 2019), auditory comprehension, speech perception, context perception, spatial contextual positioning, cognitive memory processing (Goujon and Fagot, 2013), goal selection and decision-making, and other fields (Kunar et al , 2014).…”