Which way is which? Examining symbolic control of attention with compound arrow cues

Mark Mills, Michael D. Dodd

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Spatial symbols can generate attentional biases toward peripheral locations compatible with the symbol’s meaning. An important question concerns how one symbol is selected when competing symbols are present. Studies examining this issue for spatially distinct symbols have suggested that selection depends on the task goals. In the present study, we examined whether the influence of competing symbolic stimuli (arrows) at different levels of structure on attentional control also depends on the task goals. Participants made simple detection responses to a peripheral target preceded by a spatially uninformative compound arrow (global arrow composed of local arrows). In addition, participants were required to perform a secondary task in which they matched the orientation of the global arrow (global task) or the location of a uniquely colored local arrow (local task) to a test display presented immediately following a detection response. When the global and local arrows pointed at opposite locations, a local cueing effect emerged in the local task, and a global cueing effect in the global task, indicating that the task goals influenced the selection of the level of structure. However, when the local level was spatially neutral (global arrow, local rectangles), a cueing effect was observed independent of task, and when the global level was spatially neutral (global rectangle, local arrows), a cueing effect was observed in the local task only, suggesting that global processing was obligatory and local processing optional. These findings suggest that attentional effects triggered by the global level are more strongly reflexive than those triggered by the local level.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2152-2163
Number of pages12
JournalAttention, Perception, and Psychophysics
Volume78
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2016

Fingerprint

Cues
symbol
stimulus
Arrow
trend
Symbol
Attentional Bias

Keywords

  • Attention
  • Compound cue
  • Contingent capture
  • Global/local
  • Symbolic control

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Sensory Systems
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Which way is which? Examining symbolic control of attention with compound arrow cues. / Mills, Mark; Dodd, Michael D.

In: Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, Vol. 78, No. 7, 01.10.2016, p. 2152-2163.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{525dfa1f33014bdeae00e61651c97b55,
title = "Which way is which? Examining symbolic control of attention with compound arrow cues",
abstract = "Spatial symbols can generate attentional biases toward peripheral locations compatible with the symbol’s meaning. An important question concerns how one symbol is selected when competing symbols are present. Studies examining this issue for spatially distinct symbols have suggested that selection depends on the task goals. In the present study, we examined whether the influence of competing symbolic stimuli (arrows) at different levels of structure on attentional control also depends on the task goals. Participants made simple detection responses to a peripheral target preceded by a spatially uninformative compound arrow (global arrow composed of local arrows). In addition, participants were required to perform a secondary task in which they matched the orientation of the global arrow (global task) or the location of a uniquely colored local arrow (local task) to a test display presented immediately following a detection response. When the global and local arrows pointed at opposite locations, a local cueing effect emerged in the local task, and a global cueing effect in the global task, indicating that the task goals influenced the selection of the level of structure. However, when the local level was spatially neutral (global arrow, local rectangles), a cueing effect was observed independent of task, and when the global level was spatially neutral (global rectangle, local arrows), a cueing effect was observed in the local task only, suggesting that global processing was obligatory and local processing optional. These findings suggest that attentional effects triggered by the global level are more strongly reflexive than those triggered by the local level.",
keywords = "Attention, Compound cue, Contingent capture, Global/local, Symbolic control",
author = "Mark Mills and Dodd, {Michael D.}",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3758/s13414-016-1145-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "78",
pages = "2152--2163",
journal = "Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics",
issn = "1943-3921",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Which way is which? Examining symbolic control of attention with compound arrow cues

AU - Mills, Mark

AU - Dodd, Michael D.

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - Spatial symbols can generate attentional biases toward peripheral locations compatible with the symbol’s meaning. An important question concerns how one symbol is selected when competing symbols are present. Studies examining this issue for spatially distinct symbols have suggested that selection depends on the task goals. In the present study, we examined whether the influence of competing symbolic stimuli (arrows) at different levels of structure on attentional control also depends on the task goals. Participants made simple detection responses to a peripheral target preceded by a spatially uninformative compound arrow (global arrow composed of local arrows). In addition, participants were required to perform a secondary task in which they matched the orientation of the global arrow (global task) or the location of a uniquely colored local arrow (local task) to a test display presented immediately following a detection response. When the global and local arrows pointed at opposite locations, a local cueing effect emerged in the local task, and a global cueing effect in the global task, indicating that the task goals influenced the selection of the level of structure. However, when the local level was spatially neutral (global arrow, local rectangles), a cueing effect was observed independent of task, and when the global level was spatially neutral (global rectangle, local arrows), a cueing effect was observed in the local task only, suggesting that global processing was obligatory and local processing optional. These findings suggest that attentional effects triggered by the global level are more strongly reflexive than those triggered by the local level.

AB - Spatial symbols can generate attentional biases toward peripheral locations compatible with the symbol’s meaning. An important question concerns how one symbol is selected when competing symbols are present. Studies examining this issue for spatially distinct symbols have suggested that selection depends on the task goals. In the present study, we examined whether the influence of competing symbolic stimuli (arrows) at different levels of structure on attentional control also depends on the task goals. Participants made simple detection responses to a peripheral target preceded by a spatially uninformative compound arrow (global arrow composed of local arrows). In addition, participants were required to perform a secondary task in which they matched the orientation of the global arrow (global task) or the location of a uniquely colored local arrow (local task) to a test display presented immediately following a detection response. When the global and local arrows pointed at opposite locations, a local cueing effect emerged in the local task, and a global cueing effect in the global task, indicating that the task goals influenced the selection of the level of structure. However, when the local level was spatially neutral (global arrow, local rectangles), a cueing effect was observed independent of task, and when the global level was spatially neutral (global rectangle, local arrows), a cueing effect was observed in the local task only, suggesting that global processing was obligatory and local processing optional. These findings suggest that attentional effects triggered by the global level are more strongly reflexive than those triggered by the local level.

KW - Attention

KW - Compound cue

KW - Contingent capture

KW - Global/local

KW - Symbolic control

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84973176788&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84973176788&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3758/s13414-016-1145-0

DO - 10.3758/s13414-016-1145-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 27250360

AN - SCOPUS:84973176788

VL - 78

SP - 2152

EP - 2163

JO - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

JF - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

SN - 1943-3921

IS - 7

ER -