2010Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformanceRequires access

How do selected arrows guide visuospatial attention? Dissociating symbolic value and spatial proximity.

Émilie Leblanc, Pierre Jolicoeur

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

Previous research on the control of visuospatial attention showed that overlearned symbols like arrows have the potential to induce involuntary shifts of attention. Following work on the role of attentional control settings and of the content of working memory in the involuntary deployment of visuospatial attention, Pratt and Hommel (2003) found that this unintentional orienting by an arrow depended on its top-down selection, contingent on the attentional control settings, that is to say, the target selection cue. However, in this study, each arrow was closer to the location it indicated than to any other location, raising the issue of attention being drawn to the arrow location, facilitating processing at adjacent locations, rather than pushed to the symbolically cued location. In the present study, we dissociated symbolic cueing and spatial proximity cueing by the selected arrow. The results support the proximity cueing hypothesis.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Previous research on the control of visuospatial attention showed that overlearned symbols like arrows have the potential to induce involuntary shifts of attention. Following work on the role of attentional control settings and of the content of working memory in the involuntary deployment of visuospatial attention, Pratt and Hommel (2003) found that this unintentional orienting by an arrow depended on its top-down selection, contingent on the attentional control settings, that is to say, the target selection cue. However, in this study, each arrow was closer to the location it indicated than to any other location, raising the issue of attention being drawn to the arrow location, facilitating processing at adjacent locations, rather than pushed to the symbolically cued location. In the present study, we dissociated symbolic cueing and spatial proximity cueing by the selected arrow. The results support the proximity cueing hypothesis.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Previous research on the control of visuospatial attention showed that overlearned symbols like arrows have the potential to induce involuntary shifts of attention. Following work on the role of attentional control settings and of the content of working memory in the involuntary deployment of visuospatial attention, Pratt and Hommel (2003) found that this unintentional orienting by an arrow depended on its top-down selection, contingent on the attentional control settings, that is to say, the target selection cue. However, in this study, each arrow was closer to the location it indicated than to any other location, raising the issue of attention being drawn to the arrow location, facilitating processing at adjacent locations, rather than pushed to the symbolically cued location. In the present study, we dissociated symbolic cueing and spatial proximity cueing by the selected arrow. The results support the proximity cueing hypothesis.

Key concepts: Cued speech, Cognitive psychology, Arrow, Psychology, Selection (genetic algorithm), Attentional control, Control (management), Visual attention

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
How do selected arrows guide visuospatial attention? Dissociating symbolic value and spatial proximity. — Research Paper | ScholarLens