target trials), the target was presented at the location cued by gaze (eccentric condition), or at the location horizontally offset from the cued location by 8.
The results showed that the detection of the target at the cued location was significantly facilitated.
In the context of the reorienting hypothesis, the central fixation cue is usually named "cue-back" because it is supposed to attract attention back to the centre, thus inhibiting the return of attention to the cued
It was hypothesized that saccade latency would be dependent on cue direction, such that the modified pre-cuing paradigm would produce an attentional enhancement and a decrease in saccade latency when the cued
location and the stimulus presentation location were the same.
Based on Posner and Cohen observation that IOR only occurred if a voluntary saccade was made to the cued
location but not if covert attention were allocated voluntarily to the location indicated by a central cue and then withdrawn (Posner & Cohen, 1984), Rafal and colleagues suggested that oculomotor activation was critical for generating the inhibitory effect, (Rafal, Calabresi, Brennan, and Sciolto, 1989).
Here the unexpected nuclear devices were always presented concurrently with, and within 15[degrees] of, an expected target, and the expected target in this case was always cued
accurately (although half the time the cue was dashed, signaling one of the two different levels of imprecision).
For example, validly cued
targets in the form of a dot appearing to the right of a right pointing arrow, or a dot appearing to the right of a right looking eye-gaze cue, may be perceived as more coherent than invalidly cued
9) determined whether any given target would be cued
or not cued
(missed) by the cuing system.
Facoetti and Molteni (2000) showed that performance is more affected when an incompatible flanker is present in the visual scene, and that the effect of the type of flanker depends on the size of the cued
area and/or the position of the flanker in relation to the attended area.
In the target trials, three of the targets (tank, soldier, and land mine) were presented 90% of the time (30% each) and were therefore considered as "expected"; the fourth (nuclear device) was presented only 10% of the time, within 15[degrees] of either a cued
or uncued target (always a soldier), and was unexpected but considered to be of high priority.
Posner and Cohen (1984) showed that when the interval between cue and target (SOA) is 300 ms or greater, the pattern of results was reversed, such that Reaction Time (RT) was longer on cued
than on uncued trials.
An exogenous effect is also suggested in those distractor density combinations that visually cued
the local target area (e.