Spatial cueing effects are not what we thought: on the timing of attentional deployment

Abstract

Extensive research has shown that objects that are salient or match our task goals are most likely to capture attention. But are we at the mercy of the constant changes occurring in our environment, and automatically move our attention to the ever-changing location with the highest priority? Or do we wait for clues that the appropriate moment has arrived to deploy our attention? We addressed this hitherto neglected issue in three experiments. Using a spatial-cueing paradigm, we examined whether attention is deployed as soon as a salient change occurs (the cue), or only when the context signaling that attention should be deployed appears (the search display). The cue matched the target color and was therefore expected to enjoy high attentional priority. We used two separate response compatibility manipulations, one pertaining to the cue, in the cueing display, and the other to the cued distractor, in the search display. Neutral conditions allowed us to disentangle the respective effects of these manipulations. Our results support the hypothesis that attention does not occur until the search-relevant context appears. These findings challenge the traditional interpretation of spatial-cueing effects. They are discussed within the Priority Accumulation Framework (PAF) that we confront to other attention models.

Top-down, bottom-up and selection-history-based control of attention: A failed trichotomy? The case of Priming of pop-out (PoP)

“…spatially uninformative cue appears at one of the potential target locations. Faster search performance when the target appears at the same location as the cue (valid-cue trials) than at another location (invalid-cue trials) is taken to indicate that attention was shifted to the cue (e.g., Folk et al, 1992;Gaspelin, Ruthruff & Lien, 2016) or that the cue was effective in later biasing attention in favor of its location (Lamy, Darnell, Levi & Bublil, 2018;Gabbay, Zivony & Lamy, 2019;Yaron & Lamy, 2020).…”

What is causing “inhibition of return” in spatial cueing tasks? Temporally disentangling multiple cue-triggered effects on multiple time scales using response history and conditional accuracy analyses.

“…A second factor that comes to mind is the fact that the concept of attention has been used so flexibly that it has often sufficed to easily explain mean performance patterns post hoc. There is a recent trend in the literature, however, to reinterpret attentional studies (Awh, Belopolsky, & Theeuwes, 2012;Hommel, Chapman, Cisek, Neyedli, Song, & Welsh, 2019;Yaron & Lamy, 2020). Hommel et al (2019) claim that the concept of "attention" is one of the most misleading and misused terms in the cognitive sciences, and argue that we should instead focus on behaviorally relevant selection processes and the many systems that implement them.…”

Attentional control settings and visual working memory (preprint)

“…Attentional control settings and visual working memory Attentional control settings (ACSs) determine which stimuli in our visual environments capture our attention (Becker, Folk, & Remington, 2010;Folk, Leber, & Egeth, 2002;Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992;Folk & Remington, 1998;Giammarco, Paoletti, Guild, & Al-Aidroos, 2016; although see: Gaspelin, Ruthruff, & Lien, 2016;Theeuwes, 2010Theeuwes, , 2013Yaron & Lamy, 2020). Which memory system supports ACSs?…”