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

• Authors: Heiko Reuss , Carsten Pohl , Andrea Kiesel , Wilfried Kunde

Abstracts

EN

Arrow cues and other overlearned spatial symbols automatically orient attention according to their spatial meaning. This renders them similar to exogenous cues that occur at stimulus location. Exogenous cues trigger shifts of attention even when they are presented subliminally. Here, we investigate to what extent the mechanisms underlying the orienting of attention by exogenous cues and by arrow cues are comparable by analyzing the effects of visible and masked arrow cues on attention. In Experiment 1, we presented arrow cues with overall 50% validity. Visible cues, but not masked cues, lead to shifts of attention. In Experiment 2, the arrow cues had an overall validity of 80%. Now both visible and masked arrows lead to shifts of attention. This is in line with findings that subliminal exogenous cues capture attention only in a top-down contingent manner, that is, when the cues fit the observer's intentions.

Keywords

EN

attention; arrow cues; spatial cuing; masked priming; contingent capture

• Publisher: Wyższa Szkoła Finansów i Zarządzania w Warszawie
• Journal: Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Year: 2011
• Volume: 7
• Pages: 82-91

Contributors

author

Heiko Reuss

• Department of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Germany

author

Carsten Pohl

• Department of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Germany

author

Andrea Kiesel

• Department of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Germany

author

Wilfried Kunde

• Department of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Germany

References

• Ansorge, U. (2006). Die Rolle von Absichten bei der automatischen Verarbeitung visuell-räumlicher Information [The role of intentions for the automatic processing of visuo-spatial attention].Psychologische Rundschau, 57, 2-12.
• Ansorge, U., & Heumann, M. (2006). Shifts of visuospatial attention to invisible (metacontrast-masked) singletons: Clues from reaction times and event-related potentials.Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 61-76.
• Ansorge, U., Heumann, M., & Scharlau, I. (2002). Influences of vi-sibility, intentions, and probability in a peripheral cueing task.Consciousness and Cognition, 11, 528-545.
• Ansorge, U., Horstmann, G., & Worschech, F. (2010). Attentional capture by masked color singletons.Vision Research, 50, 2015-2027.
• Ansorge, U., Kiss, M., & Eimer, M. (2009). Goal-driven attentional capture by invisible colors: Evidence from event-related potentials.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 648-653.
• Ansorge, U., & Neumann, O. (2005). Intentions determine the effect of invisible metacontrast-masked primes: Evidence for top-down contingencies in a peripheral cuing task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 762-777.
• Breitmeyer, B. G. (1984).Visual masking: An integrative approach.New York: Oxford University Press.
• Driver, J., Davis, G., Ricciardelli, P., Kidd, P., Maxwell, E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting.Visual Cognition, 6, 509-540.
• Eimer, M. (1997). Uninformative symbolic cues may bias visual-spatial attention: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.Biological Psychology, 46, 67-71.
• Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1737-1747.
• Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. W. (1998). Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: Evidence for two forms of attentional capture.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 847-858.
• Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. W. (1999). Can new objects override attentional control settings?Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 727-739.
• Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030-1044.
• Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 490-495.
• Friesen, C. K., Ristic, J., & Kingstone, A. (2004). Attentional effects of counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 319-329.
• Gibson, B. S., & Bryant, T. A. (2005). Variation in cue duration reveals top-down modulation of involuntary orienting to uninformative symbolic cues.Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 749-758.
• Hautus, M. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d'.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 27, 289-297.
• Held, B., Ansorge, U., & Müller, H. (2010). Masked singleton effects.Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 2069-2086.
• Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godijn, R. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention.Psychological Science, 12, 360-365.
• Ivanoff, J., & Klein, R. M. (2003). Orienting of attention without awareness is affected by measurement-induced attentional control settings.Journal of Vision, 3, 32-40.
• Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement. In J. B. Long, & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.),Attention & performance IX(pp. 187-203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Jonides, J., & Yantis, S. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention.Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 346-354.
• Kiefer, M. (2007). Top-down modulation of unconscious "automatic" processes: A gating framework.Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 289-306.
• Kiefer, M., & Brendel, D. (2006). Attentional modulation of unconscious "automatic" processes: Evidence from event-related potentials in a masked priming paradigm.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 184-198.
• Kiesel, A. (2009). Unbewusste Wahrnehmung: Handlungs-determinierende Reizerwartungen bestimmen die Wirksamkeit subliminaler Reize [Unconscious perception: Action-determining stimulus expectancies determine the influence of subliminal stimuli].Psychologische Rundschau, 60, 215-228.
• Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2007). Unconscious priming according to multiple S-Rrules.Cognition, 104, 89-105.
• Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., Pohl, C., & Hoffmann, J. (2006). Priming from novel masked stimuli depends on target set size.Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 37-45.
• Kiesel, A., Wagener, A., Kunde, W., Hoffmann, J., Fallgatter, A., & Stöcker, C. (2006). Unconscious manipulation of free choice in humans.Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 397-408.
• Klapp, S. (2009). Nonconscious control mimics a purposeful strategy: Strength of Stroop-like interference is automatically modulated by proportion of compatible trials.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1366-1376.
• Klapp, S. T., & Haas, B. W. (2005). The non-conscious influence of masked stimuli on response selection is limited to concrete stimulus-response associations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 193-209.
• Klapp, S. T., & Hinkley, L. B. (2002). The negative compatibility effect: Unconscious inhibition influences reaction time and response selection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 255-269.
• Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138-47.
• Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition.Cognition, 88, 223-242.
• Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2005). On the masking and disclosure of unconscious elaborate processing: A reply to Van Opstal, Reynvoet, & Verguts.Cognition, 97, 99-105.
• Kunde, W., Skirde, S., & Weigelt, M. (2011). Trust my face: Cognitive factors of head fakes in sports.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 110-127.
• Lambert, A., Naikar, N., McLachlan, K., & Aitken, V. (1999). A new component of visual orienting: Implicit effects of peripheral information and subthreshold cues on covert attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 321-340.
• Langton, S. R. H., & Bruce, V. (1999). Reflexive visual orienting in response to the social attention of others.Visual Cognition, 6, 541-567.
• Langton, S. R. H., Watt, R. J., & Bruce, V. (2000). Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 50-59.
• Martens, U., & Kiefer, M. (2009). Specifying attentional top-down influences on subsequent unconscious semantic processing.Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 5, 56-68.
• McCormick, P. A. (1997). Orienting attention without awareness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 168-180.
• Mulckhuyse, M., Talsma, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2007). Grabbing attention without knowing: Automatic capture of attention by subliminal spatial cues.Visual Cognition, 15, 779-788.
• Mulckhuyse, M., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). Unconscious attentional orienting to exogenous cues: A review of the literature.Acta Psychologica, 134, 299-309.
• Müller, H. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 315-330.
• Pohl, C., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2010). Early and late selection in unconscious information processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 268-285.
• Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25.
• Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bowhuis (Eds.),Attention and performance X(pp. 531-556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.),Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium(pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160-174.
• Pratt, J., Radulescu, P., Guo, R. M., & Hommel, B. (2010). Visuospatial attention is guided by both the symbolic value and the spatial proximity of selected arrows.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1321-1324.
• Remington, R. W., Folk, C. L., & McLean, J. P. (2001). Contingent attentional capture or delayed allocation of attention?Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 298-307.
• Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltá, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention.Neuropsychologia, 25, 31-40.
• Scharlau, I. (2002). Leading, but not trailing, primes influence temporal order perception: Further evidence for an attentional account of perceptual latency priming.Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1346-1360.
• Scharlau, I., & Ansorge, U. (2003). Direct parameter specification of an attention shift: Evidence from perceptual latency priming.Vision Research, 43, 1351-1363.
• Scharlau, I., & Neumann, O. (2003). Perceptual latency priming by masked and unmasked stimuli: Evidence for an attentional interpretation.Psychological Research, 67, 184-196.
• Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2004). Masked prime stimuli can bias "free" choices between response alternatives.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 463-468.
• Schlaghecken, F., Klapp, S., & Maylor, E. A. (2009). Either or neither, but not both: Locating the effects of masked primes.Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 515-521.
• Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002).E-prime users' guide.Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
• Stevens, S. A., West, G. L., Al-Aidroos, N., Weger, U. W., & Pratt, J. (2008). Testing whether gaze cues and arrow cues produce reflexive or volitional shifts of attention.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1148-1153.
• Theeuwes, J. (1991). Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets.Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 83-90.
• Tipples, J. (2002). Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 314-318.
• Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
• Treisman, A., Sykes, M., & Gelade, G. (1977). Selective attention and stimulus integration. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI(pp. 333-361). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Vorberg, D., Mattler, U., Heinecke, A., Schmidt, T., & Schwarzbach, J. (2003). Different time courses for visual perception and action priming.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 6275-6280.
• Vossel, S., Thiel, C. M., & Fink, G. R. (2006). Cue validity modulates the neural correlates of covert endogenous orienting of attention in parietal and frontal cortex.NeuroImage, 32, 1257-1264.
• Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202-238.
• Yantis, S., & Johnson, D. N. (1990). Mechanisms of attentional priority.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 812-825.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10053-008-0091-3