During covert and pre-saccadic attentional shifts, it is unclear how facilitation and suppression processes interact for target selection. A recent countermanding task pointed to greater suppression at unattended locations during trials with saccades compared to trials without saccades (i.e., fixation and successful stop trials), whereas target facilitation did not differ. It is unknown whether this finding is restricted to countermanding paradigms that involve inhibitory processes. To test this, we adapted Gaspelin and colleagues (2015)’s attention capture task where, within the same block, one location was primed with frequent line discrimination trials, and all locations were occasionally probed using letters report trials. Participants also performed a baseline condition without priming. We tested 15 participants and examined how performance at non-primed locations was affected by covert versus pre-saccadic attention in blocks of four or six items, as well as by position from the primed location and timing from saccade onset. For both attention conditions, letter report at non-primed locations was worse compared to baseline, demonstrating suppression, and letter report at primed location was better, demonstrating facilitation. In saccades trials, letter report was better at primed locations and worse at non-primed locations compared to fixation trials. The timing of this additional pre-saccadic suppression differed from saccadic suppression. In both attention conditions, suppression was greater when primed and non-primed locations were within the same hemifield or in diagonal opposite quadrants. These results confirmed that attention preceding saccade execution suppressed non-primed locations to a larger extent than covert attention, with the same spatial quadrant effect.

4.5.3. Breathing and attention re-allocationThis final analysis aimed to understand the relation between breathing-induced endogenous attention shifts and probe-induced exogenous attention shifts that require re-alignment of attention (i.e., invalid trials). We assessed this relation under both endogenous and exogenous attentional control settings (i.e., arrow cues and peripheral onset cues, respectively). First, we computed a new factor “breathing congruency” with two levels: congruent (Inhalation – right probe, or Exhalation – left probe) and incongruent (Inhalation – left probe, or Exhalation – right probe). Then we conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA to assess the impact of SOA (150, 300, 500 ms), cue type (endogenous, exogenous) and breathing congruency (congruent, incongruent) on invalid trial RTs only, i.e., those trials where the probe onset forced a rapid re-alignment of spatial attention.Again, no reliable main effect of cue type was found, F(1, 25) = 0.173, p = .681, ηp2 = 0.007. Importantly, a novel main effect of breathing congruency, F(1, 25) = 9.105, p = .006, ηp2 = 0.267, indicated faster RTs for congruent relationships (353 ms) compared to incongruent ones (372 ms) between breathing status and probe location. No interaction between cue type and breathing congruency was reported, F(1, 25) = 2.926, p = .100, ηp2 = 0.105. We obtained two congruency effects that were further analyzed by post-hoc t-tests: With endogenous cues, participants were 21 ms faster when re-allocating attention rightward after inhalations compared to exhalations, t(25) = 2.459, p = .021, d = 0.482. With exogenous cues, participants were 31 ms faster when re-allocating attention leftward after exhalations compared to inhalations, t(25) = −2.890, p = .008, d = −0.567. These results (see Fig. 4) suggest that breathing state substantially affects spatial re-alignment of attention. This result was not modulated by SOA (all p-values >.231).

A study conducted by Stahl et al. (2014) addressed thislimitation by using three variants of a visual matching taskthat consisted of only SS-conflict as measures of the AttentionalInhibition construct, which they called ‘Stimulus Interference.’The results of SEM conducted in a sample of 198 adults aged18 – 48 years demonstrated that this Stimulus Interferencefactor was not significantly correlated with a Response Inhibitionfactor, which they called ‘Behavioral Inhibition,’ measuredusing the stop-signal, go/no-go, and antisaccade tasks (Stahlet al., 2014). Attentional Inhibition can also be measured withgreater specificity by using modified SRC tasks that enableSS-conflict to be differentiated and examined separately fromSR-conflict (Milham et al., 2001; van Veen et al., 2001; DeHouwer, 2003). Separate measurement of SS-conflict as amore reliable and specific measure of Attentional Inhibitionmay enable the empirical independence of this construct fromResponse Inhibition to be demonstrated in a developmentalsample.

A direct correlate of visual perception, attention to visual information, varies across cultures Studies reveal that Americans attend to predominantly central focal objects visual information is processed in a field-independent way, paying less attention to background informationChinese participants make more saccade movements to the background of an image when looking at a photograph than American participantsAsians process visual information in a context-dependent / field dependent mannerAsians detect changes in the field more easily while failing to attend to focal object changes, whereas Westerners detect changes to salient objects more easily while being “change blind” to changes in the fieldEXPLAIN IN SIMPLE AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE

When driving, your attention is __________.Focused only on the road aheadFocused only on the surrounding trafficDivided among multiple different thingsFocused only on your destination

Which statement helps the reader understand the meaning of “involuntary attention”?