The attention repulsion effect (ARE) refers to distortions in the perception of space for areas near the focus of attention. For instance, when attending to the right-hand side of the visual field, objects in central vision may appear as though they are shifted to the left. The phenomenon is likely caused by changes in visual cell functioning. To date, research on the ARE has almost exclusively used exogenous manipulations of attention. In contrast, research exploring endogenous attention repulsion has been mixed, and no research has explored the effects of nonpredictive arrow cues on this phenomenon. This gap in the literature is unexpected, as symbolic attention appears to be a unique form of attentional orienting compared with endogenous and exogenous attention. Therefore, this study explored the effects of symbolic orienting on spatial repulsion and compared it with an exogenously generated ARE. Across four experiments, both exogenous and symbolic orienting resulted in AREs; however, the magnitude of the symbolic ARE was smaller than the exogenous ARE. This difference in magnitude persisted, even after testing both phenomena using stimulus timing parameters known to produce optimal effects in traditional attentional cueing paradigms. Therefore, compared with symbolic attention, it appears that exogenous manipulations may tightly constrict attention resources on the cued location, in turn, potentially influencing the functioning of visual cells for enhanced perceptual processing.
AndersonS. F.KelleyK.MaxwellS. E. (2017). Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: A method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1547–1562.
2.
Anton-ErxlebenK.CarrascoM. (2013). Attentional enhancement of spatial resolution: Linking behavioural and neurophysiological evidence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(3), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3443
BaumelerD.BornS. (2019). Vertical and horizontal meridian modulations suggest areas with quadrantic representations as neural locus of the attentional repulsion effect. Journal of Vision, 19(6), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.6.15
BrainardD. H.VisionS. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
7.
BrignaniD.GuzzonD.MarziC. A.MiniussiC. (2009). Attentional orienting induced by arrows and eye-gaze compared with an endogenous cue. Neuropsychologia, 47(2), 370–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.011
ChicaA. B.Martín-ArévaloE.BottaF.LupiáñezJ. (2014). The spatial orienting paradigm: How to design and interpret spatial attention experiments. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 40, 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.002
11.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042
12.
CutroneE. K.HeegerD. J.CarrascoM. (2018). On spatial attention and its field size on the repulsion effect. Journal of Vision, 18(6), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1167/18.6.8
13.
DiGiacomoA.PrattJ. (2012). Misperceiving space following shifts of attention: Determining the locus of the attentional repulsion effect. Vision Research, 64, 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.05.009
14.
GibsonB. S.BryantT. A. (2005). Variation in cue duration reveals top-down modulation of involuntary orienting to uninformative symbolic cues. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(5), 749–758. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193530
15.
GibsonB. S.ThompsonA. N.DavisG. J.BiggsA. T. (2011). Going the distance: Extra-symbolic contributions to the symbolic control of spatial attention. Visual Cognition, 19(10), 1237–1261. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2011.628636
GuzzonD.BrignaniD.MiniussiC.MarziC. A. (2010). Orienting of attention with eye and arrow cues and the effect of overtraining. Acta Psychologica, 134(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.008
18.
HaywardD. A.RisticJ. (2015). Exposing the cuing task: The case of gaze and arrow cues. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(4), 1088–1104. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0877-6
19.
HommelB.PrattJ.ColzatoL.GodijnR. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12(5), 360–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00367
20.
HubelD. H.WieselT. N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. Journal of Physiology (London), 160(1), 106–154. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1962.sp006837
21.
IvanoffJ.SaoudW. (2009). Nonattentional effects of non-predictive central cues. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(4), 872–880. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.4.872
22.
JonidesJ. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind’s eye’s movement. In LongJ. B.BaddeleyA. D. (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Erlbaum. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/20001365380/
23.
KosovichevaA. A.FortenbaughF. C.RobertsonL. C. (2010). Where does attention go when it moves?: Spatial properties and locus of the attentional repulsion effect. Journal of Vision, 10(12), Article 33. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.12.33
24.
LawrenceR. K.KulzhabayevaD.PrattJ. (2020). Endogenous shifts of attention cause distortions in the perception of space: Reviewing and examining the attentional repulsion effect. Visual Cognition, 28(4), 292–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2020.1793438
25.
MaylorE. A.HockeyR. (1985). Inhibitory component of externally controlled covert orienting in visual space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(6), 777–787. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.11.6.777
26.
McAuliffeJ.PrattJ. (2005). The role of temporal and spatial factors in the covert orienting of visual attention tasks. Psychological Research, 69(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0179-4
27.
MüllerH. J.RabbittP. M. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(2), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.2.315
OlkB.KingstoneA. (2015). Attention and ageing: Measuring effects of involuntary and voluntary orienting in isolation and in combination. British Journal of Psychology, 106(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12082
30.
OlkB.TsankovaE.PetcaA. R.WilhelmA. F. (2014). Measuring effects of voluntary attention: A comparison among predictive arrow, colour, and number cues. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(10), 2025–2041.
31.
PeterssonA. M.HilcheyM. D.PrattJ. (2019). Examining the Role of Attention and Sensory Stimulation in the Attentional Repulsion Effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 238. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00238
32.
PosnerM. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25.
33.
PosnerM. I.CohenY. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In BoumaH.BouwhuisD. G. (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (Vol. 32, pp. 531–556). Erlbaum.
34.
PosnerM. I.RafalR. D.ChoateL. S.VaughanJ. (1985). Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2(3), 211–228.
35.
PrattJ.Turk-BrowneN. B. (2003). The attentional repulsion effect in perception and action. Experimental Brain Research, 152(3), 376–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1557-7
RisticJ.LandryM.KingstoneA. (2012). Automated symbolic orienting: The missing link. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 560. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00560
38.
RisticJ.WrightA.KingstoneA. (2007). Attentional control and reflexive orienting to gaze and arrow cues. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 964–969. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194129
39.
StevensS. A.WestG. L.Al-AidroosN.WegerU. W.PrattJ. (2008). Testing whether gaze cues and arrow cues produce reflexive or volitional shifts of attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1148–1153. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1148
40.
SuzukiS.CavanaghP. (1997). Focused attention distorts visual space: An attentional repulsion effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(2), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.23.2.443
41.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics: International edition. Pearson.
42.
TaylorJ. E. T.ChanD.BennettP. J.PrattJ. (2015). Attentional cartography: Mapping the distribution of attention across time and space. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(7), 2240–2246. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0943-0
43.
TipplesJ. (2002). Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 314–318. https://doi-org/10.3758/BF03196287
