Voluntary allocation versus automatic capture of visual attention

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Is there a difference in the kind of attention elicited by an abrupt-onset peripheral cue and that elicited by an instruction (e.g., a central arrow cue) to move attention to a peripheral location? In Experiment 1, we found that peripheral cues are no more effective in orienting attention than are central cues. No evidence was found for separable attentional systems consisting of a volitional response to central cues and an automatic response triggered only by peripheral cues. Rather, an identical or similar attentional process seems to be activated by either type of cue, although perhaps in different ways. Peripheral cues seem to have an automatic component, however, in that once attention is engaged by a peripheral cue, it cannot easily be disengaged for refocus elsewhere. In Experiment 2, after several sessions of practice, subjects were able to circumvent automatic attentional capture by an abrupt-onset peripheral cue and to volitionally redirect the focus of attention. Thus, attentional capture by abrupt-onset stimuli is not strongly automatic.

This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit: