Spatial Attention: The Spotlight of Attention and Cueing Effects

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Attention, Perception & Cognitive Control · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Spatial attention is the process through which the cognitive system gives priority to information associated with particular locations. It helps determine where visual information is processed efficiently, how quickly a target is detected, and which competing events influence a response. A person can direct spatial attention toward the left side of a screen while continuing to look at its center. This separation between eye position and attention is central to experimental research on spatial orienting. The classic cueing experiments introduced by Posner (1980) made that separation measurable.

The spotlight of attention is a useful model of spatial selection: processing is facilitated within a prioritized region and may be less efficient elsewhere. Its scientific value lies in the predictions it generates, rather than in any literal beam that travels across the visual field. Contemporary research describes attention through several related mechanisms, including flexible spatial weighting, priority maps, sensory gain, expectations, oculomotor preparation, and competition among stimuli. The behavioral findings are robust across many well-controlled paradigms, while the precise mechanism behind any individual cueing effect requires attention to timing, probability, task demands, and measurement. Carrasco (2011).

What Is Spatial Attention in Psychology?

Spatial attention refers to preferential processing of information by location, including locations that are currently outside the direction of gaze. It is a basic cognitive process studied through detection, discrimination, localization, visual search, and eye-movement tasks. Its defining question is where processing resources or selection priority are allocated at a particular moment. This can be investigated independently of whether someone consciously notices a stimulus, knows a correct answer, or has a clinical symptom.

Imagine watching a fixed point in the center of a monitor. A subtle signal suggests that a letter will soon appear on the right. You continue to look at the center, yet identify the right-hand letter more quickly than an equally visible letter on the left. Under controlled conditions, that difference is evidence that information at the cued location received a processing advantage. The example illustrates why location-based attention can be experimentally distinguished from movement of the eyes. Posner, Snyder, and Davidson (1980).

Spatial attention belongs to a broader family of selective processes. Feature-based attention prioritizes attributes such as color or motion direction, and object-based attention favors information grouped into a perceptual object. These processes can interact: attending to a place often helps select an object there, while tracking an object can organize the distribution of attention across locations. A landmark object-based cueing experiment demonstrated advantages for targets appearing within a previously cued object, even when spatial distance was held comparable. Egly, Driver, and Rafal (1994).

The Spotlight of Attention: An Explanatory Model

The spotlight metaphor proposes that a limited area of the visual field receives preferential processing at a given moment. Like a spotlight on a stage, it highlights a region while leaving other regions relatively disadvantaged. Early experiments made this metaphor influential because attention could be shifted without an eye movement and because targets at the attended position were often detected faster. Yet the metaphor is a theoretical simplification: the visual system contains multiple interacting representations and can distribute priority in graded, task-dependent ways. Posner (1980); Carrasco (2011).

Is spatial attention a fixed circle?

Research on the scale of attentional focus suggests that its effective size can expand and contract. In a zoom-lens account, concentrating selection on a smaller region allows more concentrated processing, whereas spreading it across a larger region changes the distribution of the advantage. Eriksen and St. James (1986) proposed a model of this kind. Later work examined how advance information about target size and location changes the optimal scale of selection, revealing meaningful interactions with participant age and task conditions. Greenwood and Parasuraman (1999).

A uniform, all-or-none circle is therefore inadequate for many experiments. Sensitivity may decline gradually with distance from a prioritized region, attention may track multiple targets, and spatial priority may be shaped by task goals or previous selection. Models of competition and spatial weighting accommodate more of these patterns. The scientific issue is the shape and consequence of the priority distribution under specified conditions, not the physical outline of a hypothetical light beam. Desimone and Duncan (1995); Carrasco (2011).

A shifting spotlight and a distributed priority map

The shifting-spotlight picture emphasizes changes in the selected location over time. Priority-map approaches instead represent a landscape of competing locations with different weights. Current goals, physical conspicuity, learned associations, and selection history can jointly affect that landscape. Awh, Belopolsky, and Theeuwes (2012) argued that the familiar opposition between purely goal-directed and purely stimulus-driven control overlooks learned priorities. The metaphor and the map remain helpful at different explanatory levels, provided their distinct predictions are evaluated rather than treated as literal anatomy.

Overt and Covert Orienting: Looking Versus Attending

Overt orienting involves moving the eyes or head to bring a location into view, typically placing an object closer to the fovea, where visual acuity is greatest. Covert orienting changes the priority of a location while fixation is maintained. A person may glance toward movement in peripheral vision, or maintain central gaze while allocating attention to that movement. Both forms of orienting support interaction with the environment, and preparation for an eye movement is closely linked to attentional selection. Kowler (2011); Petersen and Posner (2012).

Covert orienting is an experimental inference. Researchers usually instruct participants to fixate a central point, use brief target presentations, and sometimes record eye position to determine whether the measured effects occurred without a saccade. Fixation instructions alone provide weaker control because small eye movements can alter retinal input and response speed. A credible interpretation therefore depends on what the actual experiment measured and controlled. Studies that isolate covert selection have helped show changes in contrast sensitivity and spatial resolution beyond simple changes in retinal image location. Carrasco (2011).

The Posner Spatial Cueing Paradigm

The spatial cueing paradigm is one of the clearest demonstrations of how psychological processes can be inferred from controlled changes in reaction time. A participant fixates centrally; a cue gives information about a possible target location; after a specified interval, a target appears at one of the possible positions; the participant detects or identifies it. Researchers compare performance when the cue and target locations coincide with performance when they differ. Posner (1980); Capizzi et al. (2023).

Valid, invalid, and neutral trials

In a valid trial, the target appears at the cued location. In an invalid trial, the target appears at a different location. A neutral trial provides little or no spatial information about the upcoming target. Neutral trials are scientifically valuable because they help separate a benefit at a validly cued location from a cost at an invalidly cued location. Typical outcomes are computed from distributions of correct-trial response times and detection or discrimination accuracy, with exclusion rules and uncertainty reported transparently. Capizzi et al. (2023).

A common operational definition is the validity effect: mean reaction time for invalid trials minus mean reaction time for valid trials. A positive difference means that, in that specific task, responses were slower following invalid cues. For example, hypothetical means of 320 milliseconds on valid trials and 350 milliseconds on invalid trials yield a 30-millisecond validity effect. Those numbers are an illustration of the calculation, not an empirical population norm or a clinical cutoff.

When a neutral condition is included, researchers may define a valid-cue benefit as neutral minus valid reaction time and an invalid-cue cost as invalid minus neutral reaction time. The simple difference between invalid and valid conditions, however, can contain several processes: prioritization at a cued location, disengagement from that location, reorienting, response preparation, or decisions shaped by expectations. It should not be equated automatically with the speed of a single neural spotlight moving through space. Posner, Snyder, and Davidson (1980).

A concrete trial sequence

Consider a screen with a central fixation cross and two possible target positions, one left and one right. A central arrow points right. After a brief cue–target interval, a faint letter appears either to the right or to the left. The observer presses a key indicating the letter's identity as quickly and accurately as possible while maintaining fixation. The arrow is valid on a predetermined proportion of trials. If its predictive information is useful, observers generally show faster or more accurate performance at the expected location, with the exact magnitude depending on target difficulty, cue reliability, and timing. Carrasco (2011).

The same display can address different questions by changing one feature at a time. Making the cue nonpredictive tests the influence of an abrupt signal without reliable location information. Changing cue–target intervals tests temporal dynamics. Requiring letter identification rather than simple detection probes perceptual discrimination. Recording gaze tests the contribution of overt shifts. Altering target contrast can reveal whether cueing affects the quality of visual evidence rather than only motor speed.

Endogenous and Exogenous Spatial Attention

Endogenous orienting is commonly studied with informative symbolic cues and can reflect deliberate use of expectations or goals. An observer learns that a central arrow is more likely to indicate the upcoming target location and strategically allocates attention there. Exogenous orienting is often studied with sudden peripheral events, such as a brief flash near one candidate target location, which can change attentional priority even when the flash provides little useful predictive information. These terms describe experimentally operationalized patterns and mechanisms rather than completely isolated mental modules. Carrasco (2011); Capizzi et al. (2023).

The standard contrast is informative, yet important exceptions have accumulated. A familiar central arrow can direct attention even when it has no predictive value, and previously rewarded locations may gain priority despite an observer's immediate goals. These findings support accounts that add automated symbolic orienting and selection history to simple voluntary/reflexive descriptions. Ristic, Landry, and Kingstone (2012); Awh, Belopolsky, and Theeuwes (2012).

Cue reliability, task demands, and strategy

A central cue valid on a large majority of trials creates an incentive to use it. When validity decreases toward chance, participants may stop relying on it, although symbol meaning and learned habits can still influence orienting. Peripheral cues can draw processing toward a location early in a trial, but their effects also depend on what else is presented and on what participants are asked to report. The interaction between statistical information and cue properties means that 'arrow equals voluntary' and 'flash equals automatic' are shortcuts that require experimental qualification. Capizzi et al. (2023).

How quickly does the effect emerge?

Researchers manipulate the stimulus-onset asynchrony, or SOA, which is the time between onset of the cue and onset of the target. Different values permit the cue to influence preparation, transient orienting, sustained selection, and, in some peripheral-cue tasks, later inhibitory effects. A finding at one SOA cannot simply be generalized to all other intervals. The temporal pattern depends on cue type, fixation control, probability, and response demand, as synthesized in reviews of attention across space and time. Capizzi et al. (2023).

Cueing Effects: What Do Faster Responses Actually Show?

The central empirical finding is that an informative or attention-directing cue can change performance at different locations. A reaction-time advantage for valid cues is well documented, but it is a composite behavioral measure. Faster detection might result from a better representation of a faint stimulus, a more favorable decision process, quicker motor preparation, or some combination of these. A strong study connects the choice of task to the particular mechanism being claimed and reports both accuracy and response time. Posner, Snyder, and Davidson (1980); Carrasco (2011).

When a target is extremely easy to see, a cue may affect response speed without materially changing accuracy. With challenging low-contrast targets, attention can improve discriminability or contrast sensitivity under some conditions. Studies of visual psychophysics therefore contribute evidence that extends beyond response speed alone. The strongest general conclusion is that spatial selection can influence both processing efficiency and some sensory judgments; the particular pathway varies across tasks. Carrasco (2011).

Detection, discrimination, and appearance

Detection tasks ask whether a target is present; discrimination tasks ask which of two alternatives it is; appearance tasks ask how a stimulus looks. These outputs need distinct interpretations. Experiments reported that covert attention could increase perceived contrast, motivating a long-running debate about the relationship between perceptual appearance and decisional biases. The original result is important evidence for some conditions, while broad statements about what every person literally experiences require convergent tests that separate perception, criterion shifts, and response strategies. Carrasco, Ling, and Read (2004); Carrasco (2011).

Spatial cueing effects are conditional, not personal scores of 'focus'

A validity effect is a comparison within a defined protocol. Its size changes when task difficulty, contrast, cue probability, cue location, target eccentricity, trial count, and data-cleaning decisions change. An individual participant's score may contain substantial trial noise and strategy differences. Inferring a stable personal attention ability requires reliability and convergent validation beyond the existence of a statistically detectable group-level cueing effect. The task supports a carefully stated experimental claim; it does not by itself establish a diagnosis, global intelligence level, or general capacity to concentrate in daily life.

Inhibition of Return: When a Previously Cued Place Becomes Slower

A peripheral event may initially facilitate responses at its location. Under certain later timing and task conditions, responses to targets at that location instead become slower. This pattern is known as inhibition of return, or IOR. A prominent interpretation is that the attentional system becomes less likely to revisit a previously inspected location, potentially favoring exploration of novel areas. Its exact operation involves multiple interacting perceptual and motor processes, and it is studied in a dedicated body of research. Klein (2000).

IOR explains why the statement 'valid spatial cues always produce faster responses' is scientifically incomplete. The relationship between cue and target depends on temporal interval, predictive value, type of target decision, and whether eye movements are possible. A late slowing effect in one paradigm should not be confused with a temporary inability to pay attention or with a clinical inhibitory deficit. The relevant inference concerns changes in orienting and responding in a specified spatial task. Klein (2000).

From Spotlight to Zoom Lens, Priority Maps, and Normalization

Different theoretical models are useful because they answer different questions. A spotlight model captures the idea of location-specific facilitation. A zoom-lens model examines the scale of the selected region. A priority-map account asks how candidate locations compete under goals, salience, and selection history. A normalization account models how attention changes sensory responses as a function of stimulus configuration and the extent of the attended region. These models form overlapping explanations at different levels of abstraction. Eriksen and St. James (1986); Awh, Belopolsky, and Theeuwes (2012); Reynolds and Heeger (2009).

Competition and sensory gain

When several stimuli are present, selective processing favors some signals over others. Desimone and Duncan's influential competition framework connected behavioral selection to neural evidence that objects and representations compete for processing. In a complementary quantitative proposal, Reynolds and Heeger described how response modulation depends on the relation between stimulus size, the attention field, and normalization mechanisms. These approaches explain why an attentional advantage need not have a single fixed magnitude under all stimulus conditions. Desimone and Duncan (1995); Reynolds and Heeger (2009).

Salience, goals, and selection history

Sudden onsets or distinctive visual events can compete strongly for selection. However, the degree of capture also depends on current goals and the capacity to suppress irrelevant events. Work on distractor suppression shows that salient stimuli can sometimes be deprioritized before they capture behavior, challenging automatic-capture accounts that ignore active suppression. Historical reward and repeated selection can likewise change spatial priority. Gaspelin and Luck (2018); Awh, Belopolsky, and Theeuwes (2012).

Spatial Attention and Eye Movements in the Brain

Spatial orienting recruits distributed neural systems involved in priority, sensory processing, and the planning and execution of eye movements. Influential attention-network reviews distinguish goal-directed selection from responses to behaviorally significant events and relate orienting to broader alerting and control functions. These models are supported by converging behavioral, imaging, lesion, and electrophysiological evidence. Their network details belong to cognitive neuroscience, while the psychological claim in this article concerns experimentally demonstrated location-dependent selection. Corbetta and Shulman (2002); Petersen and Posner (2012).

A common confusion is to identify the metaphorical spotlight with a particular brain spot. The attentional benefit measured in a cueing experiment reflects coordinated processing rather than the action of one anatomical structure. Neural mechanisms can differ depending on whether attention is sustained, shifted, directed voluntarily, or evoked by a salient event. A careful account preserves the level of explanation: behavioral evidence identifies an effect; neural measurements help explain how that effect is implemented. Corbetta and Shulman (2002).

How Researchers Measure Spatial Attention

Spatial cueing studies often use milliseconds of response latency and accuracy, but these measures become informative only when experimental design controls alternative explanations. Trials must be numerous enough to estimate conditional performance; stimulus positions and target probabilities should be documented; response mappings and anticipatory or unusually slow responses need clear exclusion rules; and the status of eye fixation should be reported. For discrimination tasks, psychometric functions and sensitivity estimates may help distinguish sensory effects from choice criteria. Carrasco (2011).

Reaction time and the speed–accuracy relationship

Participants can respond faster by adopting a riskier decision criterion, and more slowly by waiting for stronger evidence. Researchers therefore inspect errors alongside speed, instead of treating every reduction in milliseconds as a pure improvement in perceptual processing. Trial medians, distribution-based models, and within-participant contrasts may be useful when justified by design. A preregistered analysis can specify whether the primary endpoint is speed, accuracy, sensitivity, or a combination.

Eye tracking and fixation control

Eye tracking helps distinguish covert orienting from subtle gaze shifts. Its sampling quality, calibration, exclusion thresholds, and handling of blinks determine how confidently fixation can be established. A study with gaze-contingent presentation can exert stronger control than instructions alone. Eye movements themselves are important measures when the question concerns overt search and orienting; the methodological requirement is to match the measure to the claim. Kowler (2011).

Task validity and interpretation of individual differences

A laboratory cueing effect has construct validity when competing explanations have been addressed and the measure tracks the intended manipulation. A reliable within-sample group effect is not sufficient evidence that individual rankings are stable over time or that the task predicts real-world distractibility. Broader claims demand independent measures, replication, and ecological validation. When researchers compare children, adults, clinical groups, or older participants, age-related differences in vision, motor speed, motivation, and strategy are additional potential contributors. Greenwood and Parasuraman (1999).

A 2025 test–retest study by de Zwart and colleagues used a cueing task to map the spatial gradient of attention across two sessions approximately two weeks apart. It observed the expected group-level cueing and distance patterns, yet individual differences in the estimated gradient did not show sufficiently stable repeatability. This is a concrete demonstration of the difference between a robust experimental manipulation and a validated trait measure. The specific result concerns that paradigm and sample, and it should motivate further validation rather than be generalized to every spatial attention task. de Zwart et al. (2025).

Spatial Attention Across Age and Context

Basic spatial cueing phenomena have been investigated across the lifespan, but age affects visual acuity, response speed, strategic cue use, and sometimes the flexibility of attentional scaling. Older participants can show different optimal attention-window sizes in visual search without this supporting a blanket conclusion about their everyday competence. Experimental results are conditional on the study's age groups and tasks, and age comparisons require attention to perceptual and motor covariates. Greenwood and Parasuraman (1999).

Spatial attention also operates in three-dimensional environments, where depth and bodily relevance can matter. A 2024 meta-analysis of near-space advantages in detection and localization indicates that attention cannot always be understood solely as a left-versus-right decision on a flat screen. Its findings concern a specific family of spatial tasks, and the causes of proximity advantages may involve several sensory, motor, or ecological factors. Britt and Sun (2024).

Culture, habitual reading direction, expertise, and environmental regularities may influence spatial expectations and choice strategies in some paradigms. General statements about universal spatial biases require studies that separate population characteristics from display layout, learned conventions, and experimental recruitment. No single standard laboratory task establishes a uniform pattern across cultures or occupations.

Spatial and Temporal Attention Work Together

Location is only one dimension of anticipation. People can also prepare for when a target is likely to appear. Spatial and temporal orienting can cooperate or operate relatively independently depending on endogenous versus exogenous manipulations and whether a task requires detection or discrimination. A contemporary narrative review concludes that the evidence is heterogeneous and that task demands are crucial for understanding the relationship. Capizzi et al. (2023).

This interaction matters for real-world interpretation. A driver anticipating something at a particular intersection is also anticipating a time window, and an athlete tracking an opponent responds to evolving locations and temporal patterns. Laboratory cueing studies help isolate underlying operations, while natural activities involve movement, multiple objects, uncertainty, and continuous feedback. The real-world examples illustrate plausible applications of the mechanisms; they do not establish that an isolated cueing effect predicts performance or safety in these domains.

What the Evidence Establishes and What Remains Open

The existence of location-dependent changes in detection and discrimination is strongly supported by decades of experimental and review literature. Covert attention can influence performance while eyes remain fixed; cue meaning, cue timing, validity, and task instructions matter; and the spatial distribution of attention is flexible. Evidence also supports interactions with object selection, visual sensitivity, and the control of distraction. Posner (1980); Carrasco (2011).

Several explanatory questions remain active. A cueing advantage need not isolate a unique mental operation. The relative contributions of perceptual enhancement, decisional biases, response preparation, and oculomotor dynamics can depend on paradigm. The division between voluntary and automatic attention admits important exceptions. Neural accounts include multiple interacting systems, and results from static displays are not automatically transferable to complex work environments. These qualifications are part of the evidence itself and guide stronger future experiments. Awh, Belopolsky, and Theeuwes (2012); Reynolds and Heeger (2009); Capizzi et al. (2023).

Findings about altering stimulus appearance are especially dependent on psychophysical measurement and alternative models of response bias. Similarly, interesting age or clinical group differences do not turn a simple cueing task into a diagnostic instrument. Spatial attention is an experimentally defined cognitive process, and conclusions must remain proportionate to the evidence collected.

Practical Implications for Attention and Visual Tasks

The research supports a modest but useful practical principle: advance spatial information can make relevant information easier to find or identify in well-specified circumstances. In interface design, visually predictable placement and informative signals may assist orienting, although actual benefits require usability testing with representative people and realistic tasks. A conspicuous alert may redirect attention toward a problem, but it may also compete with ongoing processing. Relevance, salience, timing, and context determine the balance. Egeth and Yantis (1997); Gaspelin and Luck (2018).

Spatial cueing experiments do not establish that following a generalized 'spotlight exercise' will improve concentration, academic achievement, or clinical symptoms. Training claims need randomized intervention studies demonstrating meaningful transfer and lasting outcomes. For ordinary tasks, the defensible implication is to design clear cues and manageable visual layouts and then evaluate performance in the actual environment in which those cues will be used.

Frequently Asked Questions About Spatial Attention

What is the difference between spatial and selective attention?

Selective attention is the broad process of prioritizing some information over competing information. Spatial attention is a form of selective attention in which location is a central selection dimension. A person can also prioritize a color, moving feature, or object, and these forms can interact. Egeth and Yantis (1997).

Can I pay attention to something without looking at it?

Yes. Covert spatial orienting allows information outside the current direction of gaze to be processed preferentially. Controlled experiments demonstrate changes in detection or discrimination while central fixation is maintained. Posner (1980).

What is the spotlight effect in attention research?

The spotlight of attention is a conceptual model of location-based prioritization. It describes a region of relatively efficient processing, and later zoom-lens and priority-map models provide more flexible descriptions. It is separate from the social-psychological 'spotlight effect,' which concerns overestimating how much other people notice one's appearance or behavior. Eriksen and St. James (1986).

What does a positive Posner cueing effect mean?

In a common reaction-time definition, it means that participants responded more slowly on invalid than on valid trials. The result is a difference between task conditions, and its causal interpretation requires controls for probability, eye position, difficulty, and response preparation. It is not a standardized score for overall attentional health. Posner, Snyder, and Davidson (1980).

Why might a valid cue sometimes slow a response?

Under certain peripheral-cue timing conditions, inhibition of return can produce later slowing at a previously cued location. The direction of the effect depends on the paradigm, including cue–target interval and task. Klein (2000).

Does spatial attention improve eyesight or visual acuity?

Covert attention can affect measured contrast sensitivity, spatial resolution, and performance for some stimuli in experimental tasks. This is a change in visual processing under particular conditions and does not amount to treatment for an eye disorder or a permanent change in optical acuity. Carrasco (2011).

Is spatial cueing a test for ADHD or another disorder?

A spatial cueing task is an experimental measure of how performance changes with location and cue information. A single task score cannot establish a psychiatric diagnosis or identify a clinical impairment. Clinical assessments use distinct validated criteria and appropriately contextualized information.

Related Articles

Visual Attention: How We Select Locations, Objects, and Features explains the broader mechanisms of visual selection, including selection by location, object, and feature.

Perceptual Load Theory: Why Demanding Tasks Change Distraction examines how task demands influence distractor processing and how those findings relate to selection.

Inattentional Blindness: Why We Miss Unexpected Objects investigates failures to report unexpected stimuli when attention is allocated elsewhere, a related but distinct research paradigm.

Attention in the Age of AI: Focus, Cognitive Load, and Algorithmic Competition examines digital conditions that compete for attention, a different application-focused scientific question from the mechanisms isolated in spatial cueing experiments.

Sleep and Attention: How Lost Sleep Affects Focus and Decisions reviews the effects of sleep loss on attentional performance; it provides an adjacent context rather than a substitute for spatial-orienting research.

References

Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010

Britt, N., & Sun, H.-J. (2024). Spatial attention in three-dimensional space: A meta-analysis for the near advantage in target detection and localization. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 165, 105869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105869

Capizzi, M., Chica, A. B., Lupiáñez, J., & Charras, P. (2023). Attention to space and time: Independent or interactive systems? A narrative review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30, 2030–2048. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02325-y

Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51(13), 1484–1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012

Carrasco, M., Ling, S., & Read, S. (2004). Attention alters appearance. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 308–313. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1194

Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn755

de Zwart, B., van Moorselaar, D., Ten Brink, A. F., & Van der Stigchel, S. (2025). The applicability of a cueing paradigm to study individual differences in the spotlight of attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 87, 2250–2264. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-025-03136-0

Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205

Egeth, H. E., & Yantis, S. (1997). Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 269–297. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.269

Egly, R., Driver, J., & Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.123.2.161

Eriksen, C. W., & St. James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40(4), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211502

Gaspelin, N., & Luck, S. J. (2018). The role of inhibition in avoiding distraction by salient stimuli. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.001

Greenwood, P. M., & Parasuraman, R. (1999). Scale of attentional focus in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(5), 837–859. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206901

Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01452-2

Kowler, E. (2011). Eye movements: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51(13), 1457–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.12.014

Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2012). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35, 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150525

Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335558008248231

Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(2), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.109.2.160

Reynolds, J. H., & Heeger, D. J. (2009). The normalization model of attention. Neuron, 61(2), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.01.002

Ristic, J., Landry, M., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Automated symbolic orienting: The missing link. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 560. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00560