Predictivity and Manifestation Factors in Aging Effects on the Orienting of Spatial Attention

Objective Prior attention research has asserted that endogenous orienting of spatial attention by willful focusing may be differently influenced by aging than exogenous orienting, the capture of attention by external cues. However, most such studies confound factors of manifestation (locational vs symbolic cues) and the predictivity of cues. We therefore investigated whether age effects on orienting are mediated by those factors. Method We measured accuracy and response times of groups of younger and older adults in a discrimination task with flanker distracters, under three spatial cueing conditions: nonpredictive locational cues, predictive symbolic cues, and a hybrid predictive locational condition. Results Age differences were found to be related to the factor of cue predictivity, but not to the factor of spatial manifestation. These differences were not modulated by flanker congruency. Discussion The results indicate that the orienting of spatial attention in healthy aging may be adversely affected by less effective perception or utilization of the predictive value of cues, but not by the requirement to voluntarily execute a shift of attention.

Associations and Dissociations between Oculomotor Readiness and Covert Attention

The idea that covert mental processes such as spatial attention are fundamentally dependent on systems that control overt movements of the eyes has had a profound influence on theoretical models of spatial attention. However, theories such as Klein’s Oculomotor Readiness Hypothesis (OMRH) and Rizzolatti’s Premotor Theory have not gone unchallenged. We previously argued that although OMRH/Premotor theory is inadequate to explain pre-saccadic attention and endogenous covert orienting, it may still be tenable as a theory of exogenous covert orienting. In this article we briefly reiterate the key lines of argument for and against OMRH/Premotor theory, then evaluate the Oculomotor Readiness account of Exogenous Orienting (OREO) with respect to more recent empirical data. These studies broadly confirm the importance of oculomotor preparation for covert, exogenous attention. We explain this relationship in terms of reciprocal links between parietal ‘priority maps’ and the midbrain oculomotor centres that translate priority-related activation into potential saccade endpoints. We conclude that the OMRH/Premotor theory hypothesis is false for covert, endogenous orienting but remains tenable as an explanation for covert, exogenous orienting.