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

Abstract

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.

Follow the sign! Top-down contingent attentional capture of masked arrow cues

“…This validity effect reflects shifts of attention following the arrow cue, which result in facilitated target processing after valid cues and hampered target processing after invalid cues because of the necessity to reorient attention to the target location. This result replicates the finding that endogenous cues with a strong spatial meaning, like arrows, impact on attention akin to exogenous cues (Hommel et al, 2001; Pratt et al, 2010; Tipples, 2002). …”

“…We were able to replicate findings that visible, centrally presented arrows trigger automatic shifts of attention (Friesen et al, 2004; Gibson & Bryant, 2005; Hommel et al, 2001; Pratt et al, 2010; Tipples, 2002). Most importantly, masked arrow cues also triggered shifts of attention, yet only when overall cue validity was 80%, whereas masked cues remained ineffective when overall cue validity was 50%.…”

“…If, for example, eyes that gaze either to the left or to the right (two possible target locations) are centrally presented as cues, attention is oriented to the cued location even if the eye gaze cues correctly predict the target location only in 50% of the trials. Second, the same was found for symbolic cues that have a very strong spatial meaning, like the words right or left, or arrows pointing in one direction (Eimer, 1997; Friesen, Ristic, & Kingstone, 2004; Gibson & Bryant, 2005; Hommel, Pratt, Colzato, & Godijn, 2001; Pratt, Radulescu, Guo, & Hommel, 2010; Tipples, 2002). For example, Eimer (1997) showed both with behavioral and with electrophysiological data that centrally presented arrow cues impact on attention even when they are not informative.…”

Orienting attention in visual working memory requires central capacity: Decreased retro-cue effects under dual-task conditions

“…Furthermore, symbolic cuing is disrupted by dual-task interference in the precue setting (Du & Abrams, 2010). Yet, precues, particularly arrow cues, have also been shown to effectively bias attention automatically, even when they are uninformative (e.g., Eimer, 1997; Pratt, Radulescu, Guo, & Hommel, 2010). Although one distinction of the retrocue literature from the precue literature is that the nature of the cue is important and neither purely symbolic cues nor purely exogenous cues elicit the RCE (Berryhill et al, 2011), it seems reasonable that arrow retro-cues could automatically trigger processes giving rise to the RCE, because arrow cues reliably elicit the RCE (even though there are known differences between external and internal attention; Chun, Golomb, & Turk-Browne, 2011; Makovski & Jiang, 2007; Tanoue, Jones, Peterson, & Berryhill, 2013).…”

High spatial validity is not sufficient to elicit voluntary shifts of 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).…”