Symbolic Control of Visual Attention

Hommel, Bernhard; Pratt, Jay; Godijn, Richard

doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00367

Cited by 359 publications

(411 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

341

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There was a cueing effect for irrelevant, nonpredictive arrows and for eye gaze, consistently with previous studies that investigated these cues separately (e.g., Tipples, 2002;Hommel et al, 2001;Friesen & Kingstone, 1998) or jointly (Ristic et al, 2002). Digits, instead, did not produce reflexive orienting (discussion of the lack of effect for digit cues is postponed to the General Discussion section).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Previous studies that separately investigated gaze cues (e.g., Driver et al, 1999;Friesen & Kingstone, 1998) or arrow cues Tipples, 2002;Hommel et al, 2001;Eimer, 1997) found similar orienting effects, whereas studies that directly compared the two types of cue (although in separate blocks) have not provided a firm conclusion (Ristic et al, 2002(Ristic et al, , 2007Gibson & Kingstone, 2006;Friesen et al, 2004;Ricciardelli, Bricolo, Aglioti, & Chelazzi, 2002). A recent fMRI study suggested that orienting to gaze cues and arrow cues was supported by partially distinct cortical networks (Hietanen, Nummenmaa, Nyman, Parkkola, & Hämäläinen, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Indeed, gaze direction is coded even when it is completely irrelevant and potentially interfering with the task (Zorzi, Mapelli, Rusconi, & Umiltà, 2003). However, other studies have shown that a similar form of orienting can be induced by the meaning of communicative symbols as, for instance, pointing arrows Tipples, 2002;Hommel, Pratt, Colzato, & Godijn, 2001). This calls into question the special status of social cues and suggests that a common explanation for these findings is the conveyance of a ''directional meaning,'' regardless of biological relevance (that is, independently of whether the cue consists of gazing eyes or arrows).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Normal and Impaired Reflexive Orienting of Attention after Central Nonpredictive Cues

Bonato

Priftis

Marenzi

et al. 2009

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract& Recent studies suggest that stimuli with directional meaning can trigger lateral shifts of visuospatial attention when centrally presented as noninformative cues. We investigated covert orienting in healthy participants and in a group of 17 right braindamaged patients (9 with hemispatial neglect) comparing arrows, eye gaze, and digits as central nonpredictive cues in a detection task. Orienting effects elicited by arrows and eye gaze were overall consistent in healthy participants and in right braindamaged patients, whereas digit cues were ineffective. Moreover, patients with neglect showed, at the shortest delay between cue and target, a disengage deficit for arrow cueing whose magnitude was predicted by neglect severity. We conclude that the peculiar form of attentional orienting triggered by the directional meaning of arrow cues presents some features previously thought to characterize only the stimulus-driven (exogenous) orienting to noninformative peripheral cues. &

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Normal and Impaired Reflexive Orienting of Attention after Central Nonpredictive Cues

Bonato

Priftis

Marenzi

et al. 2009

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One possibility is that spatial, directional cues actually primarily activate exogenous attention, rather than endogenous attentional mechanisms. Consistent with this interpretation, a number of studies have shown that arrow cues elicit the very rapid, mandatory shifts of attention (Bonato, Priftis, Marenzi, & Zorzi, 2009;Eimer, 1997;Hommel, Pratt, Colzato, & Godijn, 2001;Tipples, 2002Tipples, , 2008 which are characteristic of exogenous attention. Furthermore, while the cues used by Craighero et al, (2004) were presented foveally, they were not presented centrally.…”

Section: Motor Preparation Is Necessary For Spatial Attentionmentioning

confidence: 80%

The Premotor theory of attention: Time to move on?

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractSpatial attention and eye-movements are tightly coupled, but the precise nature of this coupling is controversial. The influential but controversial Premotor theory of attention makes four specific predictions about the relationship between motor preparation and spatial attention. Firstly, spatial attention and motor preparation use the same neural substrates. Secondly, spatial attention is functionally equivalent to planning goal directed actions such as eye-movements (i.e. planning an action is both necessary and sufficient for a shift of spatial attention). Thirdly, planning a goal directed action with any effector system is sufficient to trigger a shift of spatial attention. Fourthly, the eye-movement system has a privileged role in orienting visual spatial attention. This article reviews empirical studies that have tested these predictions. Contrary to predictions one and two there is evidence of anatomical and functional dissociations between endogenous spatial attention and motor preparation. However, there is compelling evidence that exogenous attention is reliant on activation of the oculomotor system. With respect to the third prediction, there is correlational evidence that spatial attention is directed to the endpoint of goal-directed actions but no direct evidence that this attention shift is dependent on motor preparation. The few studies to have directly tested the fourth prediction have produced conflicting results, so the extent to which the oculomotor system has a privileged role in spatial attention remains unclear. Overall, the evidence is not consistent with the view that spatial attention is functionally equivalent to motor preparation so the Premotor theory should be rejected, although a limited version of the Premotor theory in which only exogenous attention is dependent on motor preparation may still be tenable. A plausible alternative account is that activity in the motor system contributes to biased competition between different sensory representations with the winner of the competition becoming the attended item.

show abstract

“…The authors presented Arabic digits in the centre of the screen while participants preformed a simple detection task and found a shift in covert attention to the left or right side according to the relative size of the number. Although the cueing of visuospatial attention by numerals has often been assessed as important evidence for an automatic activation of the mental number line (Fias & Fischer, 2005;Hubbard et al, 2005), it is important to notice that attentional effects of numbers emerge far slower than effects of other symbolic cues with directional meaning (e.g., the words "left" and "right"; Hommel, Pratt, Colzato, & Godijn, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Short Article: Coding Strategies in Number Space: Memory Requirements Influence Spatial–Numerical Associations

Lindemann

Abolafia

Pratt

et al. 2008

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The tendency to respond faster with the left hand to relatively small numbers and faster with the right hand to relatively large numbers (spatial numerical association of response codes, SNARC effect) has been interpreted as an automatic association of spatial and numerical information. We investigated in two experiments the impact of task-irrelevant memory representations on this effect. Participants memorized three Arabic digits describing a left-to-right ascending number sequence (e.g., 3–4–5), a descending sequence (e.g., 5–4–3), or a disordered sequence (e.g., 5–3–4) and indicated afterwards the parity status of a centrally presented digit (i.e., 1, 2, 8, or 9) with a left/right keypress response. As indicated by the reaction times, the SNARC effect in the parity task was mediated by the coding requirements of the memory tasks. That is, a SNARC effect was only present after memorizing ascending or disordered number sequences but disappeared after processing descending sequences. Interestingly, the effects of the second task were only present if all sequences within one experimental block had the same type of order. Taken together, our findings are inconsistent with the idea that spatial–numerical associations are the result of an automatic and obligatory cognitive process but do suggest that coding strategies might be responsible for the cognitive link between numbers and space.

show abstract

Symbolic Control of Visual Attention

Abstract: Abstract-The present study reports four pairs of experiments that examined the role of nonpredictive (i.e., task-irrelevant)

Cited by 359 publications

References 21 publications

Normal and Impaired Reflexive Orienting of Attention after Central Nonpredictive Cues

Normal and Impaired Reflexive Orienting of Attention after Central Nonpredictive Cues

The Premotor theory of attention: Time to move on?

Short Article: Coding Strategies in Number Space: Memory Requirements Influence Spatial–Numerical Associations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About