Meaningful contingent attentional orienting effects: Spatial location-based inhibition and capture

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00113

Abstract

Abstract:

In the present study, three experiments were conducted to investigate the attentional orientation effect of meaningful cues in different spatial locations using a cuing paradigm. The results showed that the inhibition effect appeared in the lower visual field and was more significant in the lower visual field and that the capture effect appeared in the upper visual field and was more significant in the higher visual field. Furthermore, the results showed that (1) the meaningful contingency between the objects guided the visuospatial attentional orienting, thereby highlighting the inhibition and capture effects in different visuospatial fields; (2) the nature of the object modulated the meaningful-contingent attentional orienting, thereby showing that the more vivid the object was, the more modulated it was, whereas the more abstract the object was, the less modulated it was; and (3) the meaningful-contingent attentional orienting was performed regularly in different visual fields, thereby highlighting the location-based inhibition and capture from the lower to the upper fields.

Key words: meaningful contingency, attentional orienting, spatial location, inhibition, capture

WANG Hui-Yuan, CHEN Ai-Rui, ZHANG Ming. (2021). Meaningful contingent attentional orienting effects: Spatial location-based inhibition and capture. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(2), 113-127.

Figures/Tables 10

References 49

[1]	Bao Y., Lei Q., Fang Y., Tong Y., Schill K., Pöppel E., & Strasburger H.( 2013). Inhibition of return in the visual field: The eccentricity effect is independent of cortical magnification. Experimental Psychology, 60( 6), 425-431. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000215 URL
[2]	Bergerbest D., Shilkrot O., Joseph M., & Salti M.( 2017). Right visual-field advantage in the attentional blink: Asymmetry in attentional gating across time and space. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 79( 7), 1979-1992.
[3]	Binder J. R., Conant L. L., Humphries C. J., Fernandino L., Simons S. B., & Aguilar M., & Desai R. H.( 2016). Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33( 3-4), 130-174. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2016.1147426 URL pmid: 27310469
[4]	Burnham, B. R.( 2007). Displaywide visual features associated with a search display’s appearance can mediate attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14( 3), 392-422. doi: 10.3758/bf03194082 URL pmid: 17874581
[5]	Carlei C., Framorando D., Burra N., & Kerzel D.( 2017). Face processing is enhanced in the left and upper visual hemi-fields. Visual Cognition, 25( 7-8), 749-761. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2017.1327466 URL
[6]	Chee M. W. L., Weekes B., Lee K. M., Soon C. S., Schreiber A., Hoon J. J., & Chee M.( 2000). Overlap and dissociation of semantic processing of Chinese characters, English words, and pictures: Evidence from fMRI. Neuroimage, 12( 4), 392-403. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0631 URL pmid: 10988033
[7]	Colegatef R. L., Hoffman J. E., & Eriksen C. W.( 1973). Selective encoding from multielement visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 14( 2), 217-224.
[8]	Dampuré J., Ros C., Rouet J.-F., & Vibert N.( 2014). Task-dependent sensitisation of perceptual and semantic processing during visual search for words. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26( 5), 530-549. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2014.907576 URL
[9]	Eriksen, C. W., & Murphy, T. D.( 1987). Movement of attentional focus across the visual field: A critical look at the evidence. Perception & Psychophysics, 42( 3), 299-305. doi: 10.3758/bf03203082 URL pmid: 3671056
[10]	Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang, A.-G. & Buchner, A. ( 2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39( 2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146 URL
[11]	Folk, C. L., & Anderson, B. A.( 2010). Target-uncertainty effects in attentional capture: Color-singleton set or multiple attentional control settings? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17( 3), 421-426. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.3.421 URL pmid: 20551369
[12]	Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. ( 1998). Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: Evidence for two forms of attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24( 3), 847-858. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.3.847 URL pmid: 9627420
[13]	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 & Performance, 18( 4), 1030-1044. URL pmid: 1431742
[14]	Folk C. L., Remington R. W., & Wright J. H.( 1994). The structure of attentional control: Contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20( 2), 317-329. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.20.2.317 URL pmid: 8189195
[15]	Gibson, B. S., & Kelsey, E. M.( 1998). Stimulus-driven attentional capture is contingent on attentional set for displaywide visual features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24( 3), 699-706. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.3.699 URL pmid: 9627409
[16]	Goodhew S. C., Kendall W., Ferber S., & Pratt J.( 2014). Setting semantics: Conceptual set can determine the physical properties that capture attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76( 6), 1577-1589.
[17]	Greene D. J., Mooshagian E., Kaplan J. T., Zaidel E., & Iacoboni M.( 2009). The neural correlates of social attention: Automatic orienting to social and nonsocial cues. Psychological Research, 73( 4), 499-511. doi: 10.1007/s00426-009-0233-3 URL
[18]	Guo Y. N., You X. Q., & Li Y.( 2016). The role of stimulus type and semantic category-level attentional set in sustained inattentional blindness: Stimulus type and attentional set in inattentional blindness. Japanese Psychological Research, 58( 4), 332-341. doi: 10.1111/jpr.12127 URL
[19]	He S., Cavanagh P., & Intriligator J.( 1997). Attentional resolution. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1( 3), 115-121. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(97)89058-4 URL pmid: 21223875
[20]	Henderson, J. M., & Hayes, T. R.( 2017). Meaning-based guidance of attention in scenes as revealed by meaning maps. Nature Human Behaviour, 1( 10), 743-747. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0208-0 URL pmid: 31024101
[21]	Hollingworth A., Maxcey-Richard A. M., & Vecera S. P.( 2012). The spatial distribution of attention within and across objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 38( 1), 135-151. doi: 10.1037/a0024463 URL pmid: 21728455
[22]	Huang W. Y., Su Y. L., Zhen Y. F., & Zhe Q.( 2016). The role of top-down spatial attention in contingent attentional capture. Psychophysiology, 53( 5), 650-662. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12615 URL pmid: 26879628
[23]	Jonides, J. ( 1981). Voluntary vs. automatic control over the mind’s eye’s movement. In J.B. Long and A.D. Baddeley (Eds.) Attention and performance IX: 187-203. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[24]	Joseph R. M., Fricker Z., & Keehn B.( 2015). Activation of frontoparietal attention networks by non-predictive gaze and arrow cues. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10( 2), 294-301. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsu054 URL pmid: 24748545
[25]	Klein, R. M.( 2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4( 4), 138-147. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01452-2 URL pmid: 10740278
[26]	Liu T., Heeger D. J., & Carrasco M.( 2006). Neural correlates of the visual vertical meridian asymmetry. Journal of Vision, 6( 11), 1294-1306. doi: 10.1167/6.11.12 URL pmid: 17209736
[27]	Lu J. C., Tian L. L., Zhang J. F., Wang J., Ye C. X., & Liu Q.( 2017). Strategic inhibition of distractors with visual working memory contents after involuntary attention capture. Scientific Reports, 7( 1), 16314. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16305-5 URL pmid: 29176675
[28]	Maxfield, L. ( 1997). Attention and semantic priming: A review of prime task effects. Consciousness & Cognition, 6( 2-3), 204-218. doi: 10.1006/ccog.1997.0311 URL pmid: 9262409
[29]	Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W.( 1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90( 2), 227-234. doi: 10.1037/h0031564 URL pmid: 5134329
[30]	Palanica, A., & Itier, R. J.( 2015). Eye gaze and head orientation modulate the inhibition of return for faces. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 77( 8), 2589-2600.
[31]	Palanica, A., & Itier, R. J.( 2017). Asymmetry in gaze direction discrimination between the upper and lower visual fields. Perception, 46( 8), 941-955. doi: 10.1177/0301006616686989 URL pmid: 28056652
[32]	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.
[33]	Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. ( 1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 531-556). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[34]	Quek, G. L., & Finkbeiner, M . ( 2016). The upper-hemifield advantage for masked face processing: Not just an attentional bias. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 78( 1), 52-68.
[35]	Sato W., Kochiyama T., Uono S., & Yoshikawa S.( 2009). Commonalities in the neural mechanisms underlying automatic attentional shifts by gaze, gestures, and symbols. Neuroimage, 45( 3), 984-992. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.052 URL pmid: 19167506
[36]	Schoeberl T., Fuchs I., Theeuwes J., & Ansorge U.( 2015). Stimulus-driven attentional capture by subliminal onset cues. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 77( 3), 737-748.
[37]	Seidl-Rathkopf K. N., Turk-Browne N. B., & Kastner S.( 2015). Automatic guidance of attention during real-world visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77( 6), 1881-1895.
[38]	Shen W., Qu Q. Q., & Li X. S.( 2016). Semantic information mediates visual attention during spoken word recognition in Chinese: Evidence from the printed-word version of the visual-world paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78( 5), 1267-1284.
[39]	Sun S. Z., Shen J., Shaw M., Cant J. S., & Ferber S.( 2015). Automatic capture of attention by conceptually generated working memory templates. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 77( 6), 1841-1847.
[40]	Thomas N. A., Castine B. R., Loetscher T., & Nicholls, M. E. R. ( 2015). Upper visual field distractors preferentially bias attention to the left. Cortex, 64, 179-193. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.10.018 URL pmid: 25437374
[41]	Wang B. C., Cao X. H., Theeuwes J., Olivers C. N. L., & Wang Z. G.( 2017). Separate capacities for storing different features in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43( 2), 226-236. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000295 URL pmid: 27399920
[42]	Wang H. Y., Sui J., & Zhang M.( 2016). The effect of cue-target relevance and search strategies on attentional capture: Evidence from meaning cues. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48( 7), 783-793. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.00783 URL
[43]	Wang H. Y., Sui J., & Zhang M.( 2018). Attentional capture is contingent on attentional control setting for semantic meaning: evidence from modified spatial cueing paradigm. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50( 10), 1071-1082. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.01071 URL
[44]	Wang H. Y., Zhang M., & Sui J.( 2014). The effect of cue-target relevance and search strategies on attentional capture. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46( 2), 185-195. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00185 URL
[45]	Wurm L. H., Legge G. E., Isenberg L. M., & Luebker A.( 1993). Color improves object recognition in normal and low vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 19( 4), 899-911. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.19.4.899 URL pmid: 8409865
[46]	Wyble B., Folk C., & Potter M. C.( 2013). Contingent attentional capture by conceptually relevant images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39( 3), 861-871. doi: 10.1037/a0030517 URL pmid: 23163786
[47]	Yang M., Liu D. W., Cai A. N., & Zhou R. L.( 2012). Attentional bias of spatial location in viewing scenes: evidence from eye tracking research. Journal of Psychological Science, 35( 2), 258-263.
[48]	Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. ( 1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10( 5), 601-621. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.10.5.601 URL pmid: 6238122
[49]	Zhao S., Li C. L., Uono S., Yoshimura S., & Toichi M.( 2017). Human cortical activity evoked by contextual processing in attentional orienting. Scientific Reports, 7( 1), 2962. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-03104-1 URL pmid: 28592863

cue-target semantic congruency/cue validity		cue location
cue-target semantic congruency/cue validity		above	right	below	left
semantic congruent	cue invalid	523.76 ± 40.26	519.42 ± 44.22	510.76 ± 40.28	516.21 ± 37.88
	cue invalid	92.58 ± 6.94	92.58 ± 7.63	93.42 ± 5.20	93.83 ± 5.97
	cue valid	497.61 ± 35.19	503.24 ± 43.28	524.96 ± 50.30	497.87 ± 44.26
	cue valid	96.50 ± 6.77	95.50 ± 5.85	96.25 ± 6.99	90.75 ± 8.49
semantic incongruent	cue invalid	524.81 ± 35.75	521.99 ± 35.59	510.06 ± 32.23	520.28 ± 33.78
	cue invalid	93.33 ± 6.28	93.25 ± 6.81	92.75 ± 7.24	94.67 ± 6.45
	cue valid	496.43 ± 34.03	503.84 ± 44.52	518.35 ± 37.04	504.62 ± 36.53
	cue valid	96.50 ± 7.67	95.00 ± 5.71	94.75 ± 5.90	94.75 ± 5.61

cue-target semantic congruency/cue validity		cue location
cue-target semantic congruency/cue validity		above	right	below	left
semantic congruent	cue invalid	523.76 ± 40.26	519.42 ± 44.22	510.76 ± 40.28	516.21 ± 37.88
	cue invalid	92.58 ± 6.94	92.58 ± 7.63	93.42 ± 5.20	93.83 ± 5.97
	cue valid	497.61 ± 35.19	503.24 ± 43.28	524.96 ± 50.30	497.87 ± 44.26
	cue valid	96.50 ± 6.77	95.50 ± 5.85	96.25 ± 6.99	90.75 ± 8.49
semantic incongruent	cue invalid	524.81 ± 35.75	521.99 ± 35.59	510.06 ± 32.23	520.28 ± 33.78
	cue invalid	93.33 ± 6.28	93.25 ± 6.81	92.75 ± 7.24	94.67 ± 6.45
	cue valid	496.43 ± 34.03	503.84 ± 44.52	518.35 ± 37.04	504.62 ± 36.53
	cue valid	96.50 ± 7.67	95.00 ± 5.71	94.75 ± 5.90	94.75 ± 5.61

cue-target semantic congruency /cue validity		cue location
cue-target semantic congruency /cue validity		above	upper right	lower right	below	lower left	upper left
semantic congruent	cue invalid	536.88 ± 42.35	537.75 ± 44.63	536.77 ± 45.04	531.48 ± 36.46	536.44 ± 40.01	533.55 ± 42.43
	cue invalid	97.95 ± 3.33	96.59 ± 4.97	95.45 ± 6.71	96.82 ± 4.51	98.86 ± 2.14	97.05 ± 3.67
	cue valid	519.41 ± 45.78	519.72 ± 43.55	545.26 ± 60.33	545.51 ± 62.54	550.27 ± 63.40	536.36 ± 53.61
	cue valid	97.73 ± 7.36	95.45 ± 12.53	95.45 ± 9.87	96.59 ± 11.69	89.77 ± 14.76	93.18 ± 11.40
semantic incongruent	cue invalid	540.97 ± 36.93	536.90 ± 42.92	540.14 ± 42.30	534.26 ± 32.20	536.42 ± 44.58	530.14 ± 35.28
	cue invalid	96.36 ± 4.92	96.36 ± 4.68	96.59 ± 5.21	96.82 ± 3.95	97.50 ± 3.36	97.05 ± 3.67
	cue valid	532.07 ± 53.20	533.43 ± 46.86	553.02 ± 53.33	568.89 ± 55.31	563.85 ± 62.08	535.43 ± 66.59
	cue valid	98.96 ± 5.33	98.86 ± 5.33	98.86 ± 5.33	96.59 ± 8.78	93.18 ± 13.76	96.59 ± 8.78

cue-target semantic congruency /cue validity		cue location
cue-target semantic congruency /cue validity		above	upper right	lower right	below	lower left	upper left
semantic congruent	cue invalid	536.88 ± 42.35	537.75 ± 44.63	536.77 ± 45.04	531.48 ± 36.46	536.44 ± 40.01	533.55 ± 42.43
	cue invalid	97.95 ± 3.33	96.59 ± 4.97	95.45 ± 6.71	96.82 ± 4.51	98.86 ± 2.14	97.05 ± 3.67
	cue valid	519.41 ± 45.78	519.72 ± 43.55	545.26 ± 60.33	545.51 ± 62.54	550.27 ± 63.40	536.36 ± 53.61
	cue valid	97.73 ± 7.36	95.45 ± 12.53	95.45 ± 9.87	96.59 ± 11.69	89.77 ± 14.76	93.18 ± 11.40
semantic incongruent	cue invalid	540.97 ± 36.93	536.90 ± 42.92	540.14 ± 42.30	534.26 ± 32.20	536.42 ± 44.58	530.14 ± 35.28
	cue invalid	96.36 ± 4.92	96.36 ± 4.68	96.59 ± 5.21	96.82 ± 3.95	97.50 ± 3.36	97.05 ± 3.67
	cue valid	532.07 ± 53.20	533.43 ± 46.86	553.02 ± 53.33	568.89 ± 55.31	563.85 ± 62.08	535.43 ± 66.59
	cue valid	98.96 ± 5.33	98.86 ± 5.33	98.86 ± 5.33	96.59 ± 8.78	93.18 ± 13.76	96.59 ± 8.78

cue-target semantic congruency/cue validity		cue location
cue-target semantic congruency/cue validity		above	upper right	lower right	below	lower left	upper left
semantic congruent	cue invalid	936.77 ± 93.65	935.36 ± 77.04	915.47 ± 75.92	890.01 ± 88.04	916.90 ± 101.56	956.92 ± 95.82
	cue invalid	92.50 ± 4.89	91.96 ± 5.89	93.48 ± 4.69	92.17 ± 4.79	93.04 ± 5.22	94.13 ± 5.36
	cue valid	811.39 ± 187.07	855.84 ± 194.22	1017.24 ± 195.81	1057.90 ± 198.98	958.87 ± 145.62	779.27 ± 150.16
	cue valid	94.02 ± 8.32	95.65 ± 8.09	92.93 ± 9.85	96.20 ± 5.88	89.67 ± 12.30	94.02 ± 9.88
semantic incongruent	cue invalid	970.18 ± 85.43	950.88 ± 89.25	923.04 ± 82.25	928.99 ± 97.65	933.36 ± 83.62	949.07 ± 79.12
	cue invalid	92.17 ± 3.72	91.41 ± 6.21	91.41 ± 4.70	91.09 ± 5.37	91.41 ± 5.43	91.20 ± 7.34
	cue valid	865.73 ± 165.24	861.82 ± 184.36	1014.82 ± 182.12	1065.98 ± 158.78	981.85 ± 165.56	777.12 ± 173.19
	cue valid	94.02 ± 9.13	93.48 ± 9.13	91.85 ± 11.06	85.87 ± 16.12	89.67 ± 11.71	94.02 ± 9.13