Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 81, Issue 2, pp 433–441 | Cite as

Different effects of spatial and temporal attention on the integration and segregation of stimuli in time

  • Poppy SharpEmail author
  • David Melcher
  • Clayton Hickey


Having expectations about when and where relevant stimuli will appear engenders endogenous temporal and spatial orienting and can provide vital benefits to visual processing. Although more is known about how each of these forms of orienting affects spatial processing, comparatively little is understood about their influences on the temporal integration and segregation of rapid sequential stimuli. A critical question is whether the influence of spatial cueing on temporal processing involves independent spatial and temporal orienting effects or a synergistic spatiotemporal impact. Here we delineated between the temporal and spatial orienting engendered by endogenous cues by using a paradigm with identical visual stimulation when the goal was to integrate or segregate the stimuli, in separate blocks of trials. We found strong effects of spatial orienting on both integration and segregation performance. In contrast, temporal orienting engendered only an invalid cueing cost, and for integration trials only. This clear differentiation between spatial and temporal cueing effects provides constraints to inform arbitration between theories of how attention biases the visual processing stream and influences the organization of visual perception in time.


Selective attention Temporal processing Precuing 



  1. Ahrens, M.-M., Veniero, D., Gross, J., Harvey, M., & Thut, G. (2015). Visual benefits in apparent motion displays: Automatically driven spatial and temporal anticipation are partially dissociated. PLoS ONE, 10, e0144082. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 379–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosman, C., & Womelsdorf, T. (2009). Neuronal signatures of selective attention—Synchronization and gain modulation as mechanisms for selective sensory information processing. In F. Aboitiz & D. Cosmelli (Eds.), From attention to goal-directed behavior: Neurodynamical, methodological and clinical trends (pp. 3–28). New York, NY: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Correa, Á., Lupiáñez, J., Milliken, B., & Tudela, P. (2004). Endogenous temporal orienting of attention in detection and discrimination tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 264–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Correa, Á., Sanabria, D., Spence, C., Tudela, P., & Lupiáñez, J. (2006). Selective temporal attention enhances the temporal resolution of visual perception: Evidence from a temporal order judgment task. Brain Research, 1070, 202–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coull, J. T., & Nobre, A. C. (1998). Where and when to pay attention: The neural systems for directing attention to spatial locations and to time intervals as revealed by both PET and fMRI. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 7426–7435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doherty, J. R., Rao, A., Mesulam, M. M., & Nobre, A. C. (2005). Synergistic effect of combined temporal and spatial expectations on visual attention. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 8259–8266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Griffin, I. C., Miniussi, C., & Nobre, A. C. (2002). Multiple mechanisms of selective attention: Differential modulation of stimulus processing by attention to space or time. Neuropsychologia, 40, 2325–2340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Griffin, I. C., & Nobre, A. C. (2005). Temporal orienting of attention. In L. Itti, G. Rees, J. K. Tsotsos (Eds.), Neurobiology of attention (pp. 257–263). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hein, E., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2006). Visual attention and temporal discrimination: Differential effects of automatic and voluntary cueing. Visual Cognition, 13, 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Janssen, P., & Shadlen, M. N. (2005). A representation of the hazard rate of elapsed time in macaque area LIP. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones, A. (2014). Independent effects of bottom-up temporal expectancy and top-down spatial attention. an audiovisual study using rhythmic cueing. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 8, 96. Google Scholar
  14. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lange, K., Krämer, U. M., & Röder, B. (2006). Attending points in time and space. Experimental Brain Research, 173, 130–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Langner, R., Steinborn, M. B., Eickhoff, S. B., & Huestegge, L. (2018). When specific action biases meet nonspecific preparation: Event repetition modulates the variable-foreperiod effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 1313–1323.Google Scholar
  17. Los, S. A., & Van Den Heuvel, C. E. (2001). Intentional and unintentional contributions of nonspecific preparation during reaction time foreperiods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 370–386. Google Scholar
  18. Miller, J., & Schröter, H. (2002). Online response preparation in a rapid serial visual search task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1364–1390. Google Scholar
  19. Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nobre, A. C., & van Ede, F. (2018). Anticipated moments: Temporal structure in attention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 19, 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olk, B. (2014). Effects of spatial, temporal and spatiotemporal cueing are alike when attention is directed voluntarily. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 3623–3633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from
  23. Rohenkohl, G., Gould, I. C., Pessoa, J., & Nobre, A. C. (2014). Combining spatial and temporal expectations to improve visual perception. Journal of Vision, 14(4), 8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sharp, P., Melcher, D., & Hickey, C. (2018). Endogenous attention modulates the temporal window of integration. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80, 1214–1228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steinborn, M. B., Langner, R., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Mobilizing cognition for speeded action: Try-harder instructions promote motivated readiness in the constant-foreperiod paradigm. Psychological Research, 81, 1135–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steinborn, M. B., Rolke, B., Bratzke, D., & Ulrich, R. (2008). Sequential effects within a short foreperiod context: Evidence for the conditioning account of temporal preparation. Acta Psychologica, 129, 297–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomaschke, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). The time-event correlation effect is due to temporal expectancy, not to partial transition costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 196–218.Google Scholar
  28. Vangkilde, S., Coull, J. T., & Bundesen, C. (2012). Great expectations: Temporal expectation modulates perceptual processing speed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1183–1191. Google Scholar
  29. Verhagen, J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). “Bayesian tests to quantify the result of a replication attempt”: Correction to Verhagen and Wagenmakers (2014). Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143, 2073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Volberg, G., & Thomaschke, R. (2017). Time-based expectations entail preparatory motor activity. Cortex, 92, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wutz, A., Muschter, E., van Koningsbruggen, M. G., Weisz, N., & Melcher, D. (2016). Temporal integration windows in neural processing and perception aligned to saccadic eye movements. Current Biology, 26, 1659–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Mind/Brain (CIMeC)University of TrentoTrentoItaly
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations