Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 72, Issue 6, pp 1437–1443 | Cite as

Implied body action directs spatial attention

  • Will M. Gervais
  • Catherine L. Reed
  • Paula M. Beall
  • Ralph J. Roberts
Brief Reports


Research confirms that the body influences perception, but little is known about the embodiment of attention. We investigated whether the implied actions of others direct spatial attention, using a lateralized covert-orienting task with nonpredictive central cues depicting static, right/left-facing bodies poised in midaction. Validity effects (decreased response times for validly compared with invalidly cued trials) indicated orienting in the direction of the implied action. In Experiment 1, we compared action (running, throwing) with nonaction (standing) cues. Only the action cues produced validity effects, suggesting that implied action directs attention. The action cues produced faster responses overall, suggesting that action cues prime motor responses. In Experiment 2, we determined whether action cues shifted attention in a specific direction rather than to a general side of space: Two cues had similar action speed and motor effort but differed in implied direction (jumping, vertical; throwing, horizontal). Validity effects were found only for the throw cues for which the implied motion direction was consistent with lateralized target locations. In Experiment 3, we compared block-like stimuli to the throwing action stimuli to examine whether lower level perceptual information could account for the attention effects alone. Validity effects were found only for the human-action stimuli. Overall, the results suggest that predictive simulations of action shift attention in action-consistent directions.


Stimulus Onset Asynchrony Validity Effect Msec Stimulus Onset Asynchrony Trunk Orientation Implied Motion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language & Cognitive Processes, 18, 513–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Freyd, J. J. (1983). The mental representation of movement when static stimuli are viewed. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 575–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 490–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grubb, J. D., & Reed, C. L. (2002). Trunk orientation induces neglect-like performance in intact individuals. Psychological Science, 13, 554–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hietanen, J. K. (2002). Social attention orienting integrates visual information from head and body orientation. Psychological Research, 66, 174–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind’s eye. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Kingstone, A., Smilek, D., Ristic, J., Friesen, C. K., & Eastwood, J. D. (2003). Attention researchers! It is time to take a look at the real world. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 176–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kingstone, A., Tipper, C., Ristic, J., & Ngan, E. (2004). The eyes have it! An fMRI investigation. Brain & Cognition, 55, 269–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Knoblich, G., & Flach, R. (2001). Predicting the effects of actions: Interactions of perception and action. Psychological Science, 12, 467–472.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kourtzi, Z., & Kanwisher, N. (2000). Activation in human MT/MST for static images with implied motion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 48–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuhn, G., & Land, M. F. (2006). There’s more to magic than meets the eye. Current Biology, 16, R950-R951.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Langton, S. R. H., & Bruce, V. (2000). You must see the point: Automatic processing of cues to the direction of social attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 747–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Langton, S. R. H., Watt, R. J., & Bruce, V. (2000). Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 50–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Loula, F., Prasad, S., Harber, K., & Shiffrar, M. (2005). Recognizing people from their movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 210–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nijhawan, R. (2008). Visual prediction: Psychophysics and neurophysiology of compensation for time delays. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 31, 179–198.Google Scholar
  16. Palmer, S. E. (1980). What makes triangles point: Local and global effects in configurations of ambiguous triangles. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 531–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Reed, C. L., Grubb, J. D., & Steele, C. (2006). Grasping attention: Behavioral consequences of bimodal neurons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 166–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rizzolatti, G., Craighero, L., & Fadiga, L. (2002). The mirror system in humans. In M. I. Stamenov & V. Gallese (Eds.), Mirror neurons and the evolution of the brain and language (pp. 37–59). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  20. Schendel, K., & Robertson, L. C. (2004). Reaching out to see: Arm position can attenuate human visual loss. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 935–943.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shmuelof, L., & Zohary, E. (2007). Watching others’ actions: Mirror representations in the parietal cortex. Neuroscientist, 13, 667–672.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tipper, S. P., Howard, L. A., & Houghton, G. (1999). Action-based mechanisms of attention. In G. W. Humphreys & J. Duncan (Eds.), Attention, space, and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 232–247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wilson, M. (2001). Perceiving imitatible stimuli: Consequences of isomorphism between input and output. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 543–553.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson, M. (2006). Covert imitation: How the body schema acts as a prediction device. In G. Knoblich, I. M. Thornton, M. Grosjean, & M. Shiffrar (Eds.), Human body perception from the inside and out: Advances in visual cognition (pp. 211–228). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 460–473.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance but only when you intend to use it. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 880–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Will M. Gervais
    • 1
    • 2
  • Catherine L. Reed
    • 1
    • 3
  • Paula M. Beall
    • 1
  • Ralph J. Roberts
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DenverDenverColorado
  2. 2.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyClaremont McKenna CollegeClaremont

Personalised recommendations