The cost and benefit of implicit spatial cues for visual attention

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Volumn 142, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 1028-1046

  Gozli, Davood G ^a   Chasteen, Alison L ^a   Pratt, Jay ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Conceptual metaphor; Embodied semantics; Theory of event coding; Visual attention

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; VISION;

ADULT; ATTENTION; CUES; HUMANS; REACTION TIME; SPACE PERCEPTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84874520124     PISSN: 00963445     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0030362     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-609.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
3. Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 84-91. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00029-3
4. Bergen, B. (2005). Mental simulation in spatial language processing. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved from http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/Proceedings/2005/docs/p232.pdf
5. Bergen, B. (2007). Experimental methods for simulation semantics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittleberg, S. Coulson, & M. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 277-301). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.
6. Bergen, B. K., Lindsay, S., Matlock, T., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 733-764. doi:10.1080/03640210701530748
7. Boulenger, V., Roy, A. C., Paulignan, Y., Deprez, V., Jeannerod, M., & Nazir, T. A. (2006). Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1607-1615. doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1607
8. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
9. Chasteen, A. L., Burdzy, D. C., & Pratt, J. (2010). Thinking of god moves attention. Neuropsychologia, 48, 627-630. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.029
10. Chatterjee, A. (2001). Language and space: Some interactions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 55-61. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01598-9
11. Chersi, F., Thill, S., Ziemke, T., & Borghi, A. M. (2010). Sentence processing: Linking language to motor chains. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 4, 1-8. doi:10.3389/fnbot.2010.00004
12. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45-73. doi:10.3758/BF03196468
13. Cohen Kadosh, R., & Henik, A. (2006). A common representation for semantic and physical properties: A cognitive-anatomical approach. Experimental Psychology, 53, 87-94. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.53.2.87
14. Coslett, H. B. (1999). Spatial influences on motor and language function. Neuropsychologia, 37, 695-706. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00116-X
15. Cousineau, D. (2007). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42-45.
16. de la Rosa, S., Choudhery, R. N., & Chatziastros, A. (2011). Visual object detection, categorization, and identification tasks are associated with different time courses and sensitivities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 38-47. doi:10.1037/a0020553
17. de la Vega, I., de Filippis, M., Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C., & Kaup, B. (2012). Emotional valence and physical space: Limits of interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 375-385. doi:10.1037/a0024979
18. Duscherer, K., Holender, D., & Molenaar, E. (2008). Revisiting the affective Simon effect. Cognition & Emotion, 22, 193-217.
19. Eder, A. B., & Klauer, K. C. (2007). Common valence coding in action and evaluation: Affective blindness towards response-compatible stimuli. Cognition & Emotion, 21, 1297-1322. doi:10.1080/02699930701438277
20. Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Head up, foot down: Object words orient attention to the objects' typical location. Psychological Science, 19, 93-97. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02051.x
21. Fischer, M. H., Castel, A. D., Dodd, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2003). Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 555-556. doi:10.1038/nn1066
22. Gevers, W., Lammertyn, J., Notebaert, W., Verguts, T., & Fias, W. (2006). Automatic response activation of implicit spatial information: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Acta Psychologica, 122, 221-233. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.11.004
23. Gozli, D. G., & Pratt, J. (2011). Seeing while acting: Hand movements can modulate attentional capture by motion onset. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2448-2456. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0203-x
24. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494-500. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007
25. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-878. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01000103
26. Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godijn, R. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12, 360-365. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00367
27. Hubbard, E. M., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Dehaene, S. (2005). Interactions between number and space in parietal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 435-448. doi:10.1038/nrn1684
28. Johnston, J. C., McCann, R. S., & Remington, R. W. (1995). Chronometric evidence for two types of attention. Psychological Science, 6, 365-369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00527.x
29. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
30. Kounios, J., Kotz, S. A., & Holocomb, P. J. (2000). On the locus of the semantic satiation effect: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1366-1377.
31. Kousta, S.-T., Vigliocco, G., & Campo, E. D. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 14-34. doi:10.1037/a0021446
32. Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2004). Actions blind to conceptually overlapping stimuli. Psychological Research, 68, 199-207.
33. Lakens, D. (2011). High skies and oceans deep: Polarity benefits or mental simulation? Frontiers in Cognition, 2, Article 21. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00021
34. Lakens, D. (2012). Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 726-736. doi:10.1037/a0024955
35. Lakens, D., Semin, G. R., & Foroni, F. (2012). But for the bad, there would not be good: Grounding valence in brightness through shared relational structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 584-594. doi:10.1037/a0026468
36. Lakoff, G. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In J. R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17-38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
37. Louwerse, M. M. (2011). Stormy seas and cloudy skies: Conceptual processing is (still) linguistic and perceptual. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 150.
38. Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15, 243-247. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00659.x
39. Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2005). The metaphorical representation of affect. Metaphor and Symbol, 20, 239-257. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms2004_1
40. Müsseler, J. (1999). How independent from action control is perception? An event-coding account for more equally-ranked crosstalks. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müsseler (Eds.), Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events (pp. 121-147). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
41. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861-872.
42. Pecher, D., & Boot, I. (2011). Numbers in space: Differences between concrete and abstract situations. Frontiers in Cognition, 2, Article 121. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00121
43. Pecher, D., Boot, I., & Van Dantzig, S. (2011). Abstract concepts: Sensorymotor grounding, metaphors, and beyond. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 217-248). Burlington, VT: Academic Press.
44. Pecher, D., Van Dantzig, S., Boot, I., Zanolie, K., & Huber, D. E. (2010). Congruency between word position and meaning is caused by taskinduced spatial attention. Frontiers in Cognition, 1, Article 30. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00030
45. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The Video Toolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
46. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25. doi:10.1080/00335558008248231
47. Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H., Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance 10: Control of language processes (pp. 531-556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416-442. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416
49. Quadflieg, S., Etzel, J. A., Gazzola, V., Keysers, C., Schubert, T. W., Waiter, G. D., & Macrae, C. N. (2011). Puddles, parties, and professors: Linking word categorization to neural patterns of visuospatial coding. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2636-2649. doi:10.1162/jocn .2011.21628
50. Remington, R. W., & Folk, C. L. (2001). A dissociation between attention and selection. Psychological Science, 12, 511-515. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00394
51. Richardson, D. C., Spivey, M. J., Barsalou, L. W., & McRae, K. (2003). Spatial representations activated during real-time comprehension of verbs. Cognitive Science, 27, 767-780. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2705_4
52. Santens, S., & Gevers, W. (2008). The SNARC effect does not imply a mental number line. Cognition, 108, 263-270. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.01.002
53. Santiago, J., Ouellet, M., Román, A., & Valenzuela, J. (2012). Attentional factors in conceptual congruency. Cognitive Science, 36, 1051-1077. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01240.x
54. Sato, M., Mengarelli, M., Riggio, L., Gallese, V., & Buccino, G. (2008). Task related modulation of the motor system during language processing. Brain and Language, 105, 83-90. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2007.10.001
55. Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1-21. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.1
56. Schwarz, W., & Keus, I. M. (2004). Moving the eyes along the mental number line: Comparing SNARC effects with saccadic and manual responses. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 651-664. doi:10.3758/BF03194909
57. Šetić, M., & Domijan, D. (2007). The influence of vertical spatial orientation on property verification. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 297-312. doi:10.1080/01690960600732430
58. Smith, L., & Klein, R. (1990). Evidence for semantic satiation: Repeating a category slows subsequent semantic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 852-861.
59. Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1625-1640.
60. Tipples, J. (2002). Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 314-318. doi:10.3758/BF03196287
61. Torralbo, A., Santiago, J., & Lupiáñez, J. (2006). Flexible conceptual projection of time onto spatial frames of reference. Cognitive Science, 30, 745-757. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_67
62. Van Dantzig, S., & Pecher, D. (2011). Spatial attention is driven by mental simulations. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 40.
63. van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1993). The role of position in object selection in vision. Psychological Research, 56, 44-58. doi:10.1007/BF00572132
64. Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483-488. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002
65. Wang, J., Conder, J. A., Blitzer, D. N., & Shinkareva, S. V. (2010). Neural representation of concrete concepts: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 1459-1468. doi:10.1002/hbm .20950
66. Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science, 29, 719-736. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_33
67. Zanolie, K., van Dantzig, S., Boot, I., Wijnen, J., Schubert, T. W., Giessner, S. R., & Pecher, D. (2012). Mighty metaphors: Behavioral and ERP evidence that power shifts attention on a vertical dimension. Brain and Cognition, 78, 50-58. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.10.006
68. Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Experiential traces and mental simulations in language comprehension. In M. DeVega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment (pp. 165-180). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
69. Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semanticrelatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954-958. doi:10.3758/BF03196557
70. Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2010). On interference effects in concurrent perception and action. Psychological Research, 74, 152-171. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0226-2
71. Zwickel, J., & Prinz, W. (2012). Assimilation and contrast: The two sides of specific interference between action and perception. Psychological Research, 76, 171-182. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0338-3