Visual Attention and the Semantics of Space

The distinction between central and peripheral cues has played an important role in understanding the functional nature of visual attention for the past 30 years. In the present article, we propose a new taxonomy that is based on linguistic categories of spatial relations. Within this framework, spatial cues are categorized as either “projective” or “deictic.” Using an empirical diagnostic, we demonstrate that the word cues above, below, left, and right express projective spatial relations, whereas arrow cues, eye-gaze cues, and abrupt-onset cues express deictic spatial relations. Thus, the projective-versus-deictic distinction crosscuts the more traditional central-versus-peripheral distinction. The theoretical utility of this new distinction is discussed in the context of recent evidence suggesting that a variety of central cues can elicit reflexive orienting.

[1]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Temporal and spatial characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays , 1972 .

[2]  J. Tipples Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  A. Kingstone,et al.  Are eyes special? It depends on how you look at it , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[4]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  A. Kingstone,et al.  The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze , 1998 .

[6]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations , 1996 .

[7]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  R. Klein,et al.  Chronometric analysis of apparent spotlight failure in endogenous visual orienting. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  G. Logan Linguistic and Conceptual Control of Visual Spatial Attention , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  R. Klein,et al.  Perceptual-motor expectancies interact with covert visual orienting under conditions of endogenous but not exogenous control. , 1994, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[11]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  15. Top-down control of reference frame alignment in directing attention from cue to target , 1996 .

[12]  A. H. C. van der Heijden,et al.  Selective Attention in Vision , 1991 .

[13]  M. Posner,et al.  Attention and the detection of signals. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Using spatial terms to select an object , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[15]  J. Pratt,et al.  Symbolic Control of Visual Attention , 2001, Psychological science.

[16]  K. Briand,et al.  Feature integration and spatial attention : More evidence of a dissociation between endogenous and exogenous orienting , 1998 .

[17]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Using spatial language , 2003 .

[18]  G. Logan Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  J. Jonides Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement , 1981 .

[20]  S. Baron-Cohen,et al.  Gaze Perception Triggers Reflexive Visuospatial Orienting , 1999 .

[21]  S. Levinson Space in language and cognition , 2003 .

[22]  M. Corballis Recognition of disoriented shapes. , 1988, Psychological review.

[23]  H. Pashler The Psychology of Attention , 1997 .

[24]  G. Logan,et al.  Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention , 1996 .

[25]  R. Klein,et al.  Is Posner's "beam" the same as Treisman's "glue"?: On the relation between visual orienting and feature integration theory. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  Bradley S. Gibson,et al.  Variation in cue duration reveals top-down modulation of involuntary orienting to uninformative symbolic cues , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  T. Boult,et al.  The eyes have it , 2003, WBMA '03.

[28]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Neural correlates of spatial term use. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  C. Fillmore Lectures on Deixis , 1997 .

[30]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Grounding spatial language in perception: an empirical and computational investigation. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  P. Killeen,et al.  An Alternative to Null-Hypothesis Significance Tests , 2005, Psychological science.