Endogenous and exogenous processes of attention have been inferred with different types of precues used in allocation of attention to a target location. In the present research, a comparison was made between the typical peripheral single-element precue (SEP), a central precue, and a multiple-element precue (MEP) in order to further understanding of the processes involved in allocation of attention. Two precues were used on each trial in these experiments. An abrupt-onset precue appeared with an SEP, an MEP, or a central (...) precue and was followed 50 or 300 ms later by a screen containing a target and two distractor characters. The abrupt-onset precue and the other precue each could be valid or invalid in indicating the location of the target, as in the study by Juola, Koshino, and Warner (1995). Response times to the targets showed that validity effects of the abrupt-onset precue and the MEP or central precue were additive, whereas those of the abrupt-onset precue and the SEP were interactive. These data suggest that, like a central precue, an MEP is an endogenous precue that guides conscious control of attention and has its attentional effects at a different processing level from an SEP, which is an exogenous precue and may compete for attentional resources with an abrupt-onset precue. (shrink)

The effect of nontargets on the identification of targets in the location-cuing paradigm was investigated in order to determine whether observers consistently allocate their attention to a validly cued location and whether the effect of nontargets is to facilitate or to inhibit performance. In four experiments, the effects of a single matching nontarget or a single nonmatching nontarget were compared. In each experiment, it was shown that observers consistently allocate their attention to a cued location when a precue appears and (...) that performance is inhibited more by nonmatching nontargets in the display than it is facilitated by matching nontargets. (shrink)

The Variable and Permeable Filters metaphor is presented with an explanation of its advantages over other popular metaphors in accounting for attention effects in many different research paradigms. Research from laboratories of the author and others are discussed briefly and shown to result in diverse facilitatory and inhibitory attention effects on visual perception. All of these effects are consistent with the VAP-Filters metaphor.