Large-scale examination of the benefit and cost of spatial attention and their variability

Spatial attention—the ability to prioritize relevant regions in our environment—is crucial for human cognition and has accordingly been studied extensively. However, large population samples have seldom been used, leaving inter-individual variability largely unexamined. Moreover, the relatively scarce studies that did consider individual differences in spatial attention did not include a baseline condition in which neutral cues do not guide attention to a particular location. This is important because a neutral condition is necessary for the distinction between attentional benefit (improved performance when attending the correct location) and attentional cost (impaired performance when attending the wrong location), and this distinction is critical for differentiating facilitatory from inhibitory mechanisms. Here, we recruited a sizable participant pool (N=438) across three experiments. The task was an acuity task with a Landolt square target that could appear in one of four possible locations. We included valid, invalid, and neutral conditions, in which precues indicated the right, wrong, or no location, respectively. We also performed a direct comparison of two types of neutral cues (a central neutral cue—a small bar presented at the center of the screen and a multi-cue with which four small bars cued all possible locations simultaneously). We measured both accuracy and RT and analyzed both the averaged attentional benefits and costs as well as their inter-individual variability. We found robust attentional benefits with high levels of inter-individual variability. In contrast, the cost averages and inter-individual distributions depended on the performance measurement (accuracy vs. RT), the cue-target distance, and the type of neutral cue. These findings provide a more refined understanding of the attentional mechanisms. Additionally, the direct comparison of the different types of neutral cue marked the ‘multi-cue’ as an optimal baseline for assessing both facilitatory and inhibitory aspects of spatial attention.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Vision
Published
2024-09-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.24.10.1089
Primary Topic
Spatial Cognition and Navigation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Large-scale examination of the benefit and cost of spatial attention and their variability

Yaffa Yeshurun, Felipe Luzardo
Journal of Vision
Spatial Cognition and Navigation
article

Large-scale examination of the benefit and cost of spatial attention and their variability

Yaffa Yeshurun, Felipe Luzardo
article en

Abstract

Spatial attention—the ability to prioritize relevant regions in our environment—is crucial for human cognition and has accordingly been studied extensively. However, large population samples have seldom been used, leaving inter-individual variability largely unexamined. Moreover, the relatively scarce studies that did consider individual differences in spatial attention did not include a baseline condition in which neutral cues do not guide attention to a particular location. This is important because a neutral condition is necessary for the distinction between attentional benefit (improved performance when attending the correct location) and attentional cost (impaired performance when attending the wrong location), and this distinction is critical for differentiating facilitatory from inhibitory mechanisms. Here, we recruited a sizable participant pool (N=438) across three experiments. The task was an acuity task with a Landolt square target that could appear in one of four possible locations. We included valid, invalid, and neutral conditions, in which precues indicated the right, wrong, or no location, respectively. We also performed a direct comparison of two types of neutral cues (a central neutral cue—a small bar presented at the center of the screen and a multi-cue with which four small bars cued all possible locations simultaneously). We measured both accuracy and RT and analyzed both the averaged attentional benefits and costs as well as their inter-individual variability. We found robust attentional benefits with high levels of inter-individual variability. In contrast, the cost averages and inter-individual distributions depended on the performance measurement (accuracy vs. RT), the cue-target distance, and the type of neutral cue. These findings provide a more refined understanding of the attentional mechanisms. Additionally, the direct comparison of the different types of neutral cue marked the ‘multi-cue’ as an optimal baseline for assessing both facilitatory and inhibitory aspects of spatial attention.

Journal of VisionVol. 24(10)
University of Haifa (IL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Spatial Cognition and Navigation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.