Effects of cue validity on the temporal dynamics of attentional selection

Visual attention can be allocated to locations or objects, leading to enhanced processing of the specific location (space-based effects) or specific object (object-based effects). Object-based effects are smaller and less robust than space-based effects and prone to large individual differences. Moreover, the temporal dynamics of object-based effects have been found to differ largely between individuals. Studies on space- and object-based effects are often based on a two-rectangle paradigm with target distribution biased to the cued location. To assess whether and how the target's spatial probability modulates the temporal dynamics of attentional effects, we manipulated cue validity from 80% over 50% to 33% in three experiments. We investigated the temporal dynamics of space- and object-based effects on group level and for individual participants. We observed that the magnitude and the prevalence of space-based effects heavily decrease with reduced cue validity. The low prevalence of object-based effects did not change across experiments, as independent of cue validity, only a few participants showed significant effects in each cue-to-target interval. Our results highlight that cue validity is a key factor for the strength and prevalence of space-based effects but does not account for the low prevalence of object-based effects.

Inhibition of Return Decreases Early Audiovisual Integration: An Event-Related Potential Study

Previous behavioral studies have found that inhibition of return decreases the audiovisual integration, while the underlying neural mechanisms are unknown. The current work utilized the high temporal resolution of event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate how audiovisual integration would be modulated by inhibition of return. We employed the cue-target paradigm and manipulated the target type and cue validity. Participants were required to perform the task of detection of visual (V), auditory (A), or audiovisual (AV) targets shown in the identical (valid cue) or opposed (invalid cue) side to be the preceding exogenous cue. The neural activities between AV targets and the sum of the A and V targets were compared, and their differences were calculated to present the audiovisual integration effect in different cue validity conditions (valid, invalid). The ERPs results showed that a significant super-additive audiovisual integration effect was observed on the P70 (60∼90 ms, frontal-central) only under the invalid cue condition. The significant audiovisual integration effects were observed on the N1 or P2 components (N1, 120∼180 ms, frontal-central-parietal; P2, 200∼260 ms, frontal-central-parietal) in both valid cue as well as invalid cue condition. And there were no significant differences on the later components between invalid cue and valid cue. The result offers the first neural demonstration that inhibition of return modulates the early audiovisual integration process.

Processing Mechanisms Of Eye-Head Cues And Eye-Finger-Pointing Cues In The Dot-Perspective Task

<p><b>Calculating others’ visual perspective automatically is a pivotal ability in human’s social communications. In the dot-perspective task, the ability is shown as a consistency effect: adults respond more slowly to judge the number of discs that they can see when a computer-generated avatar sees fewer discs. The implicit mentalising account attributes the effect to relatively automatic tracking of others’ visual perspectives. However, the submentalising account attributes the effect to domain-general attentional orienting. Accordingly, three studies were conducted to elucidate the ongoing implicit mentalising vs. submentalising debate.</b></p> <p>Study 1 (comprising Experiments 1 and 2) replicated the consistency effect either when real-human-face or spatial layout of discs was considered. Study 2 (comprising of Experiments 3 and 4) dissociated two accounts by manipulating real human’s facial cues. In Experiment 3, using a new visual access manipulation (i.e., a black rectangle placed on an agent’s eyes for rendering an invisible condition), a consistency effect was induced for eyes-opened but not eyes-covered faces with head direction, suggesting implicit mentalising. Experiment 4 firstly compared implicit mentalising (via consistency effect in the dot-perspective task) with attentional orienting (via a cue-validity effect in Posner task) when manipulating eye-head cues (head-front-gaze-averted versus head-turned-gaze-maintained). Neither effect was modulated by eye-head-related directional cue, but the cue-validity effect’s elicitation seemed to be related to the directional cue’s dynamic property. Overall, implicit mentalising as revealed in consistency effect cannot be purely reduced to attentional-orienting-related submentalising processes.</p> <p>Study 3 (comprising of Experiments 5 to 7) further clarified the debate by considering the agent’s different body cues. Experiment 5 extended the findings of Experiment 4 by generating a new eye-head-cue comparison (head-front-gaze-averted vs. head-turned-gaze-averted). Directional cue modulated cue-validity effect but not consistency effect, favouring Study 2’s conclusion. Experiment 6 adopted a new body-cue-manipulation (gaze-averted vs. finger-pointing). Both cue-validity and consistency effects were elicited for finger-pointing but not gaze-averted agents, supporting submentalising. Experiment 7 combined finger-pointing with visual access’s manipulation (eyes-opened vs. eyes-covered) on the dot-perspective task. Visual access did not modulate the consistency effect when finger-pointing was simultaneously displayed, supporting submentalising. Altogether, gaze aversion cues appear to play a dominant role in moderating implicit mentalising on the dot-perspective task, but the process may be interfered by the easily-discriminable finger-pointing cues via an attentional orienting mechanism.</p>

PROCESSING MECHANISMS OF EYE-HEAD CUES AND EYE-FINGER-POINTING CUES IN THE DOT-PERSPECTIVE TASK

<p><b>Calculating others’ visual perspective automatically is a pivotal ability in human’s social communications. In the dot-perspective task, the ability is shown as a consistency effect: adults respond more slowly to judge the number of discs that they can see when a computer-generated avatar sees fewer discs. The implicit mentalising account attributes the effect to relatively automatic tracking of others’ visual perspectives. However, the submentalising account attributes the effect to domain-general attentional orienting. Accordingly, three studies were conducted to elucidate the ongoing implicit mentalising vs. submentalising debate.</b></p> <p>Study 1 (comprising Experiments 1 and 2) replicated the consistency effect either when real-human-face or spatial layout of discs was considered. Study 2 (comprising of Experiments 3 and 4) dissociated two accounts by manipulating real human’s facial cues. In Experiment 3, using a new visual access manipulation (i.e., a black rectangle placed on an agent’s eyes for rendering an invisible condition), a consistency effect was induced for eyes-opened but not eyes-covered faces with head direction, suggesting implicit mentalising. Experiment 4 firstly compared implicit mentalising (via consistency effect in the dot-perspective task) with attentional orienting (via a cue-validity effect in Posner task) when manipulating eye-head cues (head-front-gaze-averted versus head-turned-gaze-maintained). Neither effect was modulated by eye-head-related directional cue, but the cue-validity effect’s elicitation seemed to be related to the directional cue’s dynamic property. Overall, implicit mentalising as revealed in consistency effect cannot be purely reduced to attentional-orienting-related submentalising processes.</p> <p>Study 3 (comprising of Experiments 5 to 7) further clarified the debate by considering the agent’s different body cues. Experiment 5 extended the findings of Experiment 4 by generating a new eye-head-cue comparison (head-front-gaze-averted vs. head-turned-gaze-averted). Directional cue modulated cue-validity effect but not consistency effect, favouring Study 2’s conclusion. Experiment 6 adopted a new body-cue-manipulation (gaze-averted vs. finger-pointing). Both cue-validity and consistency effects were elicited for finger-pointing but not gaze-averted agents, supporting submentalising. Experiment 7 combined finger-pointing with visual access’s manipulation (eyes-opened vs. eyes-covered) on the dot-perspective task. Visual access did not modulate the consistency effect when finger-pointing was simultaneously displayed, supporting submentalising. Altogether, gaze aversion cues appear to play a dominant role in moderating implicit mentalising on the dot-perspective task, but the process may be interfered by the easily-discriminable finger-pointing cues via an attentional orienting mechanism.</p>

PROCESSING MECHANISMS OF EYE-HEAD CUES AND EYE-FINGER-POINTING CUES IN THE DOT-PERSPECTIVE TASK

<p><b>Calculating others’ visual perspective automatically is a pivotal ability in human’s social communications. In the dot-perspective task, the ability is shown as a consistency effect: adults respond more slowly to judge the number of discs that they can see when a computer-generated avatar sees fewer discs. The implicit mentalising account attributes the effect to relatively automatic tracking of others’ visual perspectives. However, the submentalising account attributes the effect to domain-general attentional orienting. Accordingly, three studies were conducted to elucidate the ongoing implicit mentalising vs. submentalising debate.</b></p> <p>Study 1 (comprising Experiments 1 and 2) replicated the consistency effect either when real-human-face or spatial layout of discs was considered. Study 2 (comprising of Experiments 3 and 4) dissociated two accounts by manipulating real human’s facial cues. In Experiment 3, using a new visual access manipulation (i.e., a black rectangle placed on an agent’s eyes for rendering an invisible condition), a consistency effect was induced for eyes-opened but not eyes-covered faces with head direction, suggesting implicit mentalising. Experiment 4 firstly compared implicit mentalising (via consistency effect in the dot-perspective task) with attentional orienting (via a cue-validity effect in Posner task) when manipulating eye-head cues (head-front-gaze-averted versus head-turned-gaze-maintained). Neither effect was modulated by eye-head-related directional cue, but the cue-validity effect’s elicitation seemed to be related to the directional cue’s dynamic property. Overall, implicit mentalising as revealed in consistency effect cannot be purely reduced to attentional-orienting-related submentalising processes.</p> <p>Study 3 (comprising of Experiments 5 to 7) further clarified the debate by considering the agent’s different body cues. Experiment 5 extended the findings of Experiment 4 by generating a new eye-head-cue comparison (head-front-gaze-averted vs. head-turned-gaze-averted). Directional cue modulated cue-validity effect but not consistency effect, favouring Study 2’s conclusion. Experiment 6 adopted a new body-cue-manipulation (gaze-averted vs. finger-pointing). Both cue-validity and consistency effects were elicited for finger-pointing but not gaze-averted agents, supporting submentalising. Experiment 7 combined finger-pointing with visual access’s manipulation (eyes-opened vs. eyes-covered) on the dot-perspective task. Visual access did not modulate the consistency effect when finger-pointing was simultaneously displayed, supporting submentalising. Altogether, gaze aversion cues appear to play a dominant role in moderating implicit mentalising on the dot-perspective task, but the process may be interfered by the easily-discriminable finger-pointing cues via an attentional orienting mechanism.</p>

Studying Spatial Visual Attention: The Attention-Window Task as a Measurement Tool for the Shape and Maximum Spread of the Attention Window

Visual attentional processes have been an important topic in psychological research for years. Over the last few decades, new methods have been developed, aiming to explore the characteristics of the focus of attention in more detail. Studies that applied the “Attention-Window Task” (AWT) quantified the maximum extent of the “Attention Window” (AW) along its horizontal, vertical, and diagonal meridians, when subjects were required to perceive two peripheral stimuli simultaneously. In three experiments using the AWT, we investigated the effects of cue validity (Experiment 1), stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) (i.e., the interval between the onset of the cues and the onset of the target stimuli), and target stimuli complexity (Experiment 3) on the size and shape of the AW. Results showed that the AW was greater under valid cue conditions compared to invalid conditions, when the locations of cue and target stimuli differed. Furthermore, the AW decreased when the SOA between the cue and targets was reduced and also when the task complexity was higher and more objects within the target stimuli had to be classified. Overall, it can be stated that the AWT with its possible task changes and adjustments can be considered as a potential standard tool to measure the maximum spread and shape of the spatial AW.

EXPRESS: Eye Movement Patterns to Social and Non-social Cues in Early Deaf Adults

Previous research on covert orienting to the periphery suggested that early profound deaf adults were less susceptible to uninformative gaze cues, though were equally or more affected by non-social arrow cues. The aim of the present work was to investigate whether spontaneous eye movement behaviour helps explain the reduced impact of the social cue in deaf adults. We tracked the gaze of 25 early profound deaf and 25 age-matched hearing observers performing a peripheral discrimination task with uninformative central cues (gaze vs. arrow), stimulus-onset asynchrony (250 vs. 750 ms) and cue-validity (valid vs. invalid) as within-subject factors. In both groups, the cue-effect on RT was comparable for the two cues, although deaf observers responded significantly slower than hearing controls. While deaf and hearing observers eye movement pattern looked similar when the cue was presented in isolation, deaf participants made significantly eye movements than hearing controls once the discrimination target appeared. Notably, further analysis of eye movements in the deaf group revealed that independent of cue-type, cue-validity affected saccade landing position, while latency was not modulated by these factors. Saccade landing position was also strongly related to the magnitude of the validity effect on RT, such that the greater the difference in saccade landing position between invalid and valid trials, the greater the difference in manual RT between invalid and valid trials. This work suggests that the contribution of overt selection in central cueing of attention is more prominent in deaf adults and helps determine the manual performance, irrespective of cue-type.

The impact of retro-cue validity on working memory representation: Evidence from electroencephalograms

Memory performance can be improved by retrospectively cueing an item maintained in visual working memory (VWM). Different hypotheses have been proposed to explain the mechanisms behind retro-cueing and VWM. Previous behavioral studies suggest that different retro-cue validities may lead individuals to implement retro-cues in different ways to obtain a retro-cue effect. However, there is still no clear electroencephalogram (EEG) evidence to support that the retro-cue effect under different validity conditions is triggered by different mechanisms. Herein, we investigated whether retro-cue validity modulated the mechanisms underlying the retro-cue effect in VWM by using EEGs. We manipulated retro-cue validity by using blocks in a color change detection task. Contralateral delay activity (CDA) and lateralized alpha power were used assess spatial attention and memory storage, respectively. Significant retro-cue effects were observed under both high- and low-validity conditions. More importantly, although the retro-cue could redirect spatial attention under both high- and low-validity conditions, we found that participants maintained the non-cued items during a measured time interval under the low-validity condition, but dropped them out of VWM under the high-validity condition. Our results resolve previous contradictory findings. The retro-cue effect in our study can be explained by the removal hypothesis, prioritization hypothesis, and protection-during-retrieval hypothesis. This work suggests that the mechanisms underlying the retro-cue effect are not mutually exclusive, but determined by the cue validity. Individuals can voluntarily choose different mechanisms based on the expected retro-cue validity.