Setting semantics: conceptual set can determine the physical properties that capture attention
The ability of a stimulus to capture visuospatial attention depends on the interplay between its bottom-up saliency and its relationship to an observer’s top-down control set, such that stimuli capture attention if they match the predefined properties that distinguish a searched-for target from distractors (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 1030–1044 1992). Despite decades of research on this phenomenon, however, the vast majority has focused exclusively on matches based on low-level physical properties. Yet if contingent capture is indeed a “top-down” influence on attention, then semantic content should be accessible and able to determine which physical features capture attention. Here we tested this prediction by examining whether a semantically defined target could create a control set for particular features. To do this, we had participants search to identify a target that was differentiated from distractors by its meaning (e.g., the word “red” among color words all written in black). Before the target array, a cue was presented, and it was varied whether the cue appeared in the physical color implied by the target word. Across three experiments, we found that cues that embodied the meaning of the word produced greater cuing than cues that did not. This suggests that top-down control sets activate content that is semantically associated with the target-defining property, and this content in turn has the ability to exogenously orient attention.
KeywordsSpatial attention Contingent capture Semantics Cognitive control Embodied cognition Attentional capture Attention: selective Automaticity
This research was supported by an Ontario Government Postdoctoral Fellowship and an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA DE140101734) awarded to S.C.G., Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) discovery grants awarded to S.F. (261203-13) and J.P. (194537), and an Early Researcher Award and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) grant awarded to S.F. (106436). The authors thank Nicole Fogel and Samuel Chen for assistance with the data collection.
- Bar, M., Kassam, K. S., Ghuman, A. S., Boshyan, J., Schmidt, A. M., Dale, A. M., … Halgren, E. (2006). Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 449–454. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507062103
- Di Lollo, V. (2010). Iterative reentrant processing: A conceptual framework for perception and cognition (the blinding problem? No worries, mate). In V. Coltheart (Ed.), Tutorials in visual cognition (pp. 9–42). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2011). Looking at anything that is green when hearing “frog”: How object surface colour and stored object colour knowledge influence language-mediated overt attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 122–145. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.481474 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention & performance X (pp. 531–556). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar