Examining the time course of facilitation and inhibition with simultaneous onset and offset cues

The experiment conducted examined the effect of simultaneously presented onset and offset cues on the orienting of attention in the visual field. Subjects were presented with a display that consisted of four placeholder boxes around a central fixation point. An onset and an offset cue appeared simultaneously in two of the locations, and the other two locations provided a neutral baseline condition. Reaction times were measured in a simple target detection task with stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs) that ranged from 100 ms to 1,000 ms. As expected, the onset cue produced early facilitation and later occurring inhibition of return (IOR). The offset cue produced significant inhibition at all but the earliest SOA. These results suggest that simultaneously presented onset and offset cues both capture attention, but that attention is rapidly disengaged from the location of the offset cue, resulting in earlier occurring IOR. For the onset cues, attention is allocated for a longer period of time, producing the typical pattern of early facilitation and later occurring IOR. The differing time course of attention at each location may reflect separate facilitatory and inhibitory processes, and the priority given to the onset of a stimulus by the attentional system.     

内源性注意与外源性注意的跨通道比较

该研究利用空间线索技术的实验模式,考察跨视觉和听觉通道的内源性选择注意与外源性选择性注意的相互关系。实验结果表明：(1)听觉中央线索在较长的SOA(至少500毫秒)条件下,可以引导内源性空间选择性注意;同时外周线索突现也能自动化地吸引部分注意资源。(2)听觉和视觉选择注意是分离的加工通道,但二者之间存在相互联系。     

Modulation of auditory spatial attention by visual emotional cues: differential effects of attentional engagement and disengagement for pleasant and unpleasant cues

Previous research has demonstrated that threatening, compared to neutral pictures, can bias attention towards non-emotional auditory targets. Here we investigated which subcomponents of attention contributed to the influence of emotional visual stimuli on auditory spatial attention. Participants indicated the location of an auditory target, after brief (250 ms) presentation of a spatially non-predictive peripheral visual cue. Responses to targets were faster at the location of the preceding visual cue, compared to at the opposite location (cue validity effect). The cue validity effect was larger for targets following pleasant and unpleasant cues compared to neutral cues, for right-sided targets. For unpleasant cues, the crossmodal cue validity effect was driven by delayed attentional disengagement, and for pleasant cues, it was driven by enhanced engagement. We conclude that both pleasant and unpleasant visual cues influence the distribution of attention across modalities and that the associated attentional mechanisms depend on the valence of the visual cue.     

Spatial orienting of tactile attention induced by social cues

Several studies have established that humans orient their visual attention reflexively in response to social cues such as the direction of someone else’s gaze. However, the consequences of this kind of orienting have been addressed only for the visual system. We investigated whether visual social attention cues can induce shifts in tactile attention by combining a central noninformative eye-gaze cue with tactile targets presented to participants’ fingertips. Data from speeded detection, speeded discrimination, and signal detection tasks converged on the same conclusion: Eye-gaze-based orienting facilitates the processing of tactile targets at the location of the gazed-at body location. In addition, we examined the effects of other directional cues, such as conventional arrows, and found that they can be equally effective. This is the first demonstration that social attention cues have consequences that reach beyond their own sensory modality.     

Movement versus focusing of visual attention

In two experiments, we investigated the idea that attention moves through visual space in an analog fashion. The spatial distribution of attention was determined by presenting a spatially informative cue and comparing reaction times to targets at cued and uncued locations as a function of the interval from cue onset to target onset (SOA). Facilitation and inhibition were measured by reference to a neutral condition in which the cue provided no spatial information. In the first experiment, we used a central cue (an arrow), and in the second experiment, we used a peripheral cue (a 50-msec flash). With central cue, the facilitatory effects of the cuing were initially equal for all locations on the indicated side of the display, and then decreased for all locations except the one that had been specifically cued. These results are interpreted as being more consistent with "focusing" of an initially broad "beam" of attention than with "movement" of a narrow beam from fixation to the cued location. With peripheral cues, strong facilitation specific to the cued location was manifest as early as 50 msec after cue onset, but this effect decreased with increasing SOA. Inhibition for uncued locations increased with increasing SOA at a rate that generally reflected their distance from the cued location. Taken together, these results reveal important differences between peripheral and central cues in the generation of attentional selectivity, not just in the time-course of events, but also in the nature of the processes involved.     

Effects of goal-related motivational states on the orienting of spatial attention

Three experiments are presented indicating that motivational processes arising from incentive and feedback signals exert specific effects on the orienting of visual spatial attention. Subjects played a video game in which targets were presented in one of two peripheral locations. Pre-target cues were employed to orient attention to a location where points could be gained (positive incentive cue), to a location where points could be lost (negative incentive cue) or to neither location (neutral cue). Cost-benefit analyses were used to assess the consequences of such orienting. Although there was no evidence of general attentional biases favoring positive over negative incentives, all three experiments demonstrated an interaction between the incentive value of the current trial and the outcome of the previous trial. Following unsuccessful outcomes, attentional costs were greater for positive than negative incentives, whereas following successful outcomes, costs were larger for negative than positive cues. This pattern was evident for tasks involving detection, perceptual discrimination and memory scanning. These findings are discussed in light of contemporary models of motivation and the control of attention.     

Involuntary attention and identification accuracy

Using the spatial cuing paradigm, Prinzmetal, McCool, and Park (2005) made the distinction between voluntary and involuntary attention. They claimed that although accuracy was affected by an informative spatial cue (which controls voluntary attention), it was not affected by a noninformative cue (which controls involuntary attention). We reevaluate two reports that assert that noninformative spatial cues affect accuracy. Dufour (1999) reported that a noninformative auditory cue enhanced visual identification in a conjunction search task. Klein and Dick (2002) reported that, in an RSVP task with visual cues, the cue also enhanced accuracy at short stimulus onset asynchronies. We found that Dufour's results were due to overt orienting (eye movements) rather than to covert attention. The results of Klein and Dick were due either to location uncertainty or to a confounding of the order of stimulus presentation and condition.     

The spatial distribution of inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to the finding that response times (RTs) are typically slower for targets at previously attended (cued) locations than for targets at novel (uncued) locations. Although previous research has indicated that IOR may spread beyond a cued location, the present study is the first to examine the spatial distribution of IOR with high spatial resolution over a large portion of the central visual field. This was done by using a typical IOR procedure (cue, delay, target) with 4 cue locations and 441 target locations (each separated by 1° of visual angle). The results indicate that IOR spreads beyond the cued location to affect the cued hemifield. However, the cues also produced a gradient of RTs throughout the visual field, with inhibition in the cued hemifield gradually giving way to facilitation in the hemifield opposite the cue.     

眼睛注视线索提示效应: 内源性注意还是外源性注意?

采用改进的Posner视-空间线索提示范式, 对眼睛注视线索提示效应(eyes gaze cueing effect)的加工机制进行了探讨。实验一考察注视提示线索对空间Stroop效应的影响; 实验二考察注视提示线索对特征抽取和特征整合的影响。实验结果显示: 注视线索提示有效时的空间Stroop效应显著大于提示无效的情景; 在单一特征搜索与特征联合搜索任务中, 注视线索提示效应无差别。这说明, 注视线索通过在头脑里形成空间方位表征诱导注意转移; 注视线索通过影响特征抽取、而非特征整合阶段, 对客体加工产生易化。本研究支持注视线索提示效应属于内源性注意的观点。     

Investigating the time course of tactile reflexive attention using a non-spatial discrimination task

Peripheral cues are thought to facilitate responses to stimuli presented at the same location because they lead to exogenous attention shifts. Facilitation has been observed in numerous studies of visual and auditory attention, but there have been only four demonstrations of tactile facilitation, all in studies with potential confounds. Three studies used a spatial (finger versus thumb) discrimination task, where the cue could have provided a spatial framework that might have assisted the discrimination of subsequent targets presented on the same side as the cue. The final study circumvented this problem by using a non-spatial discrimination; however, the cues were informative and interspersed with visual cues which may have affected the attentional effects observed. In the current study, therefore, we used a non-spatial tactile frequency discrimination task following a non-informative tactile white noise cue. When the target was presented 150 ms after the cue, we observed faster discrimination responses to targets presented on the same side compared to the opposite side as the cue; by 1000 ms, responses were significantly faster to targets presented on the opposite side to the cue. Thus, we demonstrated that tactile attentional facilitation can be observed in a non-spatial discrimination task, under unimodal conditions and with entirely non-predictive cues. Furthermore, we provide the first demonstration of significant tactile facilitation and tactile inhibition of return within a single experiment.     

Spatial probability as an attentional cue in visual search

We investigated the role of spatial probabilities in target location during participants' performance of a visual search task. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that spatial probabilities could serve as a powerful attentional bias that produced faster detection of targets in high-probability locations than of those in low- or random-probability locations. The effect could not be explained by repetition priming alone. Moreover, responses to targets in low-probability locations were slowed only when a distractor was present in the high-probability location. In Experiments 3-5, we compared the effects of spatial probability with an explicit endogenous cue and a salient exogenous cue. Facilitation due to spatial probability was independent of any benefit afforded by the explicit endogenous cue but interacted with the salient exogenous cue, such that the exogenous cue validity effect was compressed for targets in the high-probability location. Together, these results suggest that the spatial probabilities governing target location constitute a potent bias of visual processing and, as such, can be considered an attentional cue that differs from both typical explicit endogenous and salient exogenous cues.     

Selectively ignoring locations does not modulate contingent involuntary orienting,but selectively attending does

Attending to a location in the visual field facilitates processing of objects in that location, and numerous studies have revealed processing benefits by precuing target locations. Recent studies have also demonstrated that precuing a location to ignore reduces distraction by items in that location; however, precuing a feature (colour) to ignore increases distractor interference, at least before a template for rejection is established. Thus, locations, not features, can be selectively ignored. The present study used a spatial cuing task to examine whether featurally-relevant items are selected when they appear in ignored locations. The results revealed contingent attentional capture by target-relevant cues (red cue when searching for red targets, but not for onset targets), even when the cue appeared in a location that was ignored. Importantly, this was equivalent to contingent capture elicited by cues in non-ignored locations. However, when observers were precued to the target location, contingent capture was largely eliminated. The results suggest salient items with target-relevant features are selected from selectively ignored locations, but focusing attention onto a location can preclude capture by salient and target-relevant items.     

Transient attention degrades perceived apparent motion

Transient spatial attention refers to the automatic selection of a location that is driven by the stimulus rather than a voluntary decision. Apparent motion is an illusory motion created by stationary stimuli that are presented successively at different locations. In this study we explored the effects of transient attention on apparent motion. The motion target presentation was preceded by either valid attentional cues that attract attention to the target location in advance (experiments 1-4), neutral cues that do not indicate a location (experiments 1, 3, and 4), or invalid cues that direct attention to a non-target location (experiment 2). Valid attentional cues usually improve performance in various tasks. Here, however, an attentional impairment was found. Observers' ability to discriminate the direction of motion diminished at the cued location. Analogous results were obtained regardless of cue type: singleton cue (experiment 1), central non-informative cue (experiment 2), or abrupt onset cue (experiment 3). Experiment 4 further demonstrated that reversed apparent motion is less likely with attention. This seemingly counterintuitive attentional degradation of perceived apparent motion is consistent with several recent findings, and together they suggest that transient attention facilitates spatial segregation and temporal integration but impairs spatial integration and temporal segregation.     

Time-Course of Sensitivity Changes as Attention Shifts to an Unpredictable Location

Shifting visual attention is often described as analogous to a spotlight moving through empty space between locations. In the present experiment, a peripheral precue summoned attention to an initial location, and 200 ms later a second peripheral cue appeared beside one of two possible second locations, each 14° away from the initial location. The target was twice as likely to appear at the location that had been indicated by the immediately preceding cue as at the location that had been previously cued or that would be cued. Fine-grained temporal analyses indicated that, as attention was shifted, sensitivity to information at the second location gradually increased while sensitivity at the first location simultaneously decreased. Average sensitivity over the two locations during the shift remained significantly greater than average sensitivity immediately following the initial precue. In contrast, an attentional “spotlight” moving from the first to the second location would produce a decrease in average sensitivity to its initial level while the spotlight was between locations.     

The owl and the pussycat: Gaze cues and visuospatial orienting

Recent research has shown that nonpredictive gaze cues trigger reflexive shifts in attention toward the looked-at location. But just how generalizable is this spatial cuing effect? In particular, are people especially tuned to gaze cues provided by conspecifics, or can comparable shifts in visual attention be triggered by other cue providers and directional cues? To investigate these issues, we used a standard cuing paradigm to compare the attentional orienting produced by different cue providers (i.e., animate vs. inanimate) and directional cues (i.e., eyes vs. arrows). The results of three experiments revealed that attentional orienting was insensitive to both the identity of the cue provider and the nature of the triggering cue. However, compared with arrows, gaze cues prompted a general enhancement in the efficiency of processing operations. We consider the implications of these findings for accounts of reflexive visual orienting.     

Time-course of sensitivity changes as attention shifts to an unpredictable location.

Shifting visual attention is often described as analogous to a spotlight moving through empty space between locations. In the present experiment, a peripheral precue summoned attention to an initial location, and 200 ms later a second peripheral cue appeared beside one of two possible second locations, each 14 degrees away from the initial location. The target was twice as likely to appear at the location that had been indicated by the immediately preceding cue as at the location that had been previously cued or that would be cued. Fine-grained temporal analyses indicated that, as attention was shifted, sensitivity to information at the second location gradually increased while sensitivity at the first location simultaneously decreased. Average sensitivity over the two locations during the shift remained significantly greater than average sensitivity immediately following the initial precue. In contrast, an attentional "spotlight" moving from the first to the second location would produce a decrease in average sensitivity to its initial level while the spotlight was between locations.     

Allocation of attention, reading skills, and deafness.

Brannan and Williams (1987) found that poor readers cannot successfully utilize parafoveal cues to identify letter targets. Whether a similar deficit in the use of cue information occurs in deaf poor readers and whether it is only specific to processes that capture attention automatically were investigated in congenitally deaf young adults classified as poor or good readers and hearing controls classified as good readers. Subjects were presented with central or parafoveal cues that varied in cue validity probability, followed by letter targets presented to the left or right of fixation. The reaction time data analyses showed significant main effects for cue type and cue location and significant interactions among cue type, cue location, cue validity probability, and visual field. No significant main effect or interactions involving groups were found. These results raise the possibility that reading difficulties associated with deafness do no involve a deficit in the visual attentional system of deaf people. They also confirm that parafoveal cues are more effective than central cues in capturing attention.     

Eye gaze versus arrows as spatial cues: two qualitatively different modes of attentional selection

This study aimed to evaluate the type of attentional selection (location- and/or object-based) triggered by two different types of central noninformative cues: eye gaze and arrows. Two rectangular objects were presented in the visual field, and subjects' attention was directed to the end of a rectangle via the observation of noninformative directional arrows or eye gaze. Similar experiments with peripheral cues have shown an object-based effect: faster target identification when the target is presented on the cued object as compared to the uncued object, even when the distance between target and cue was the same. The three reported experiments aimed to compare the location- and object-based attentional orienting observed with arrows and eye gaze, in order to dissociate the orienting mechanisms underlying the two types of orienting cues. Results showed similar cueing effects on the cued versus oppositely cued locations for the two cue types, replicating several studies with nonpredictive gaze and arrow cues. However, a pure object-based effect occurred only when an arrow cue was presented, whereas a pure location-based effect was only found for eye-gaze cues. It is suggested that attention is nonspecifically directed to nearby objects when a noninformative arrow is used as cue, whereas it is selectively directed to a specific cued location when noninformative eye gaze is used. This may be mediated by theory of mind mechanisms.     

Training attention: Interactions between central cues and reflexive attention

Three experiments are reported in which we investigate whether the recently reported interactions between central cues (e.g., arrows) and reflexive attention are attributable to the overlearned spatial properties of certain central cues. In all three experiments, a nonpredictive cue with arbitrary spatial properties (a colour patch) is presented prior to a detection target in the left or right visual field. Reaction times to detect targets are compared before and after a training session in which participants are trained to associate each colour patch with left and right space, either via a target detection task in which colour predicts target location 100% of the time (Experiments 1 and 3), or via a left/right motor movement as a function of colour (Experiments 2 and 3). In the first two experiments, a small but highly significant training effect is observed. Participants are approximately 10 ms faster to detect targets at congruent locations relative to incongruent locations after training relative to before training, despite the fact that cue colour was nonpredictive during the test sessions. In Experiment 3, the length of the training session is increased and the magnitude of the training effect also increases as a result. Implications for the interaction between central cues and reflexive attention, as well as premotor theory of attention, are discussed.     

A developmental study of covert orienting to peripheral visual cues

Observers aged 6, 8, and 20 years participated in a speeded classification task designed to measure covert shifts of visual attention. On each trial observers responded to a target which appeared in one of three locations arrayed horizontally across the display. Three prestimulus cues were employed: neutral (the cue was present in all three possible target locations), unpredictable (the cue was present in the target location on a random basis), and predictable (the cue was present in the target location on 80% of the trials). There were four developmental findings: (1) Observers of all ages oriented attention automatically to the cued locations, (2) children processed targets in non-cued locations more slowly than adults, (3) only adults took advantage of the predictability of the cue, and (4) all age groups provided evidence that strategic orienting competes with response priming for cognitive resources. The implications of these findings for theories of attentional development are discussed.