Abstract

Concepts with implicit spatial meaning (e.g., "hat", "boots") can bias visual attention in space. This result is typically found in experiments with a single visual target per trial, which can appear at one of two locations (e.g., above vs. below). Furthermore, the interaction is typically found in the form of speeded responses to targets appearing at the compatible location (e.g., faster responses to a target above fixation, after reading "hat"). It has been argued that these concept-space interactions could also result from experimentally-induced associations between the binary set of locations and the conceptual categories with upward and downward meaning. Thus, rather than reflecting a conceptually driven spatial bias, the effect could reflect a benefit for compatible cue-target sequences that occurs only after target onset. We addressed these concerns by going beyond a binary set of locations and employing a search display consisting of four items (above, below, left, and right). Within each search trial, before performing a visual search task, participants performed a conceptual task involving concepts with implicit upward or downward meaning. The search display, in addition to including a target, could also include a salient distractor. Assuming a conceptually driven visual bias, we expected to observe, first, a benefit for target processing at the compatible location and, second, an increase in the cost of the salient distractor. The findings confirmed both predictions, suggesting that concepts do indeed generate a spatial bias. Finally, results from a control experiment, without the conceptual task, suggest the presence of an axis-specific effect, in addition to the location-specific effect, suggesting that concepts might cause both location-specific and axis-specific spatial bias. Taken together, our findings provide additional support for the involvement of spatial processing in conceptual understanding.

Highlights

  • There is considerable evidence that spatial symbols can generate attentional bias toward locations in the periphery

  • Three participants were excluded for having percent errors (PEs) above 20% on catch trials

  • Data were analyzed in two steps, once as a function of cue-target relationship and once as a function of cue-distractor relationship. This is because the location of the salient distractor did not vary independently of the target and, the two cannot be treated as independent factors

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There is considerable evidence that spatial symbols can generate attentional bias toward locations in the periphery. A variety of uninformative symbols have been shown to produce visuospatial bias These include explicitly directional words (e.g., "left" and "right", [1,7,8]) and words with an implicit spatial meaning. Implicit spatial cues include numbers [9,10], concepts referring to time [11], concepts with a positive or negative valence [12,13,14,15], concepts related to social status and self-esteem [16,17], and concepts referring to divinity and evil [18] In all these cases, peripheral targets were processed faster at locations compatible with the spatial meaning of the concepts. Processing the concepts, involves activating the corresponding sensorimotor spatial components

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call