Abstract
Humans routinely use spatial language to control the spatial distribution of attention. In so doing, spatial information may be communicated from one individual to another across opposing frames of reference, which in turn can lead to inconsistent mappings between symbols and directions (or locations). These inconsistencies may have important implications for the symbolic control of attention because they can be translated into differences in cue validity, a manipulation that is known to influence the focus of attention. This differential validity hypothesis was tested in Experiment 1 by comparing spatial word cues that were predicted to have high learned spatial validity (“above/below”) and low learned spatial validity (“left/right”). Consistent with this prediction, when two measures of selective attention were used, the results indicated that attention was less focused in response to “left/right” cues than in response to “above/below” cues, even when the actual validity of each of the cues was equal. In addition, Experiment 2 predicted that spatial words such as “left/right” would have lower spatial validity than would other directional symbols that specify direction along the horizontal axis, such as “←/→” cues. The results were also consistent with this hypothesis. Altogether, the present findings demonstrate important semantic-based constraints on the spatial distribution of attention.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bryant, D. J., Tversky, B., & Franklin, N. (1992). Internal and external spatial frameworks for representing described scenes. Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 74–98.
Carlson, L. A. (2003). Using spatial language. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 127–161). San Diego: Academic Press.
Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–63). New York: Academic Press.
Corballis, M. C. (1988). Recognition of disoriented shapes. Psychological Review, 95, 115–123.
Corbetta, M., Kincade, M., Ollinger, J. M., McAvoy, M. P., & Shulman, G. L. (2000). Voluntary orienting is dissociated from target detection in human posterior parietal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 292–297.
Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, seeing, and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Dosher, B. A., & Lu, Z. L. (2000). Noise exclusion in spatial attention. Psychological Science, 11, 139–146.
Franklin, N., & Tversky, B. (1990). Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 63–76.
Friesen, C. K., Ristic, J., & Kingstone, A. (2004). Attention effects on counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & 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.
Gibson, B. S., & Kingstone, A. (2006). Visual attention and the semantics of space: Beyond central and peripheral cues. Psychological Science, 17, 622–627.
Goldberg, M., Maurer, D., & Lewis, T. (2001). Developmental changes in attention: The effects of endogenous cuing and of distractors. Developmental Science, 4, 209–219.
Ho, C., & Spence, C. (2006). Verbal interface design: Do verbal directional cues automatically orient visual spatial attention? Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 733–748.
Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godijn, R. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12, 360–365.
Hopfinger, J., Buonocore, M., & Mangun, G. (2000). The neural mechanisms of top-down attentional control. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 284–291.
Johnson, D. N., McGrath, A., & McNeil, C. (2002). Cuing interacts with perceptual load in visual search. Psychological Science, 13, 284–287.
Johnson, D. N., & Yantis, S. (1995). Allocating visual attention: Tests of a two-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1376–1390.
Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind’s eye movement. In J. [B.] Long & A. [D.] Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jonides, J., & Mack, R. (1984). On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 29–44.
Kemmerer, D. (2006). The semantics of space: Integrating linguistic typology and cognitive neuroscience. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1607–1621.
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present- day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Lavie, N., & de Fockert, J. W. (2003). Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 202–212.
Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 339–354.
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Logan, G. D. (1994). Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 1015–1036.
Logan, G. D. (1995). Linguistic and conceptual control of visual spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 103–174.
Logan, G. D. (1996). Top-down control of reference frame alignment in directing attention from cue to target. In A. F. Kramer, M. G. H. Coles, & G. D. Logan (Eds.), Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention (pp. 415–438). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Logan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D. (1996). A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 493–529). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, A. R., & Kosson, D. S. (2004). The effects of auditory and visual linguistic distractors on target localization. Neuropsychology, 18, 248–257.
Nobre, A., Sebestyen, G., & Miniussi, C. (1995). The dynamics of shifting visuospatial attention revealed by event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia, 38, 964–974.
Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.
Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160–174.
Prinzmetal, W., McCool, C. K., & Park, S. (2005). Attention: Reaction time and accuracy reveal different mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 73–92.
Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446–461.
Ristic, J., Friesen, C., & Kingstone, A. (2002). Are the eyes special? It depends on how you look at it. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 507–513.
Ristic, J., & Kingstone, A. (2006). Attention to arrows: Pointing to a new direction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1921–1930.
Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47, 1–24.
Schober, M. F. (1995). Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: Whose effort is minimized in conversations about locations? Discourse Processes, 20, 219–247.
Tipples, J. (2002). Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 314–318.
Tipples, J. (2008). Orienting to counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 77–87.
van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1992). Selective attention in vision. New York: Routledge.
Vecera, S. P., & Rizzo, M. (2004). What are you looking at? Impaired “social attention” following frontal-lobe damage. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1657–1665.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors thank Adam Biggs, Bradley A. Dobrzenski, and Ann C. Flies for their help collecting the data for the present experiments.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gibson, B.S., Scheutz, M. & Davis, G.J. Symbolic control of visual attention: Semantic constraints on the spatial distribution of attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 71, 363–374 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.2.363
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.2.363