Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Covert Attention, Temperament, and Looking: A Novel Approach to Studying Attention in the Social World.

Psychological reports·2018
Same author

A meta-analysis of the 2004 campaign polls: an analogy to practice and publication in psychology.

Psychological reports·2007
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 21, 2026

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments
13:00

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Published on: January 23, 2017

10.4K

Does Target Object Processing Affect Reaction Times in Simple Detection Spatial Cueing Tasks?

Raymond D Collings1, Leslie G Eaton2

  • 1State University of New York, Cortland, NY, USA raymond.collings@cortland.edu.

Perceptual and Motor Skills
|May 12, 2016
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Target features like numbers versus letters affect detection speed in spatial cueing tasks. Response times depend on target set size and cue-location, influencing visual perception research.

Keywords:
detectionspatial cueingtarget objecttarget set size

More Related Videos

A Dual Task Procedure Combined with Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Test Attentional Blink for Nontargets
08:45

A Dual Task Procedure Combined with Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Test Attentional Blink for Nontargets

Published on: December 5, 2014

9.7K
Using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Measure Set-Specific Capture, a Consequence of Distraction While Multitasking
05:58

Using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Measure Set-Specific Capture, a Consequence of Distraction While Multitasking

Published on: August 29, 2018

9.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 21, 2026

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments
13:00

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Published on: January 23, 2017

10.4K
A Dual Task Procedure Combined with Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Test Attentional Blink for Nontargets
08:45

A Dual Task Procedure Combined with Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Test Attentional Blink for Nontargets

Published on: December 5, 2014

9.7K
Using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Measure Set-Specific Capture, a Consequence of Distraction While Multitasking
05:58

Using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Measure Set-Specific Capture, a Consequence of Distraction While Multitasking

Published on: August 29, 2018

9.4K

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Visual Perception
  • Human Factors

Background:

  • Posner's exogenous spatial cueing task is a standard paradigm for investigating attention.
  • Previous research often assumes target features do not significantly impact basic detection.
  • Understanding attentional processes requires examining factors beyond spatial location.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how target type (letters vs. numbers) and target set size influence performance in a simple detection spatial cueing task.
  • To determine if object features interact with spatial cueing effects.
  • To explore methodological implications for visual perception and spatial attention research.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized a Posner exogenous spatial cueing task with simple detection.
  • Manipulated target conditions: single letter, single number, set of four letters, set of four numbers.
  • Varied cue-target lag and cue-target location (same vs. different).

Main Results:

  • Responses were significantly faster for number targets compared to letter targets.
  • This number advantage was observed under specific conditions: short cue-target lag, larger target set size (multiple possibilities), and spatially separated cue/target.
  • Indicates that target object features modulate performance even in simple detection.

Conclusions:

  • Target object features (e.g., number vs. letter) play a role in simple visual detection tasks, interacting with spatial attention mechanisms.
  • Findings challenge the assumption of feature independence in some spatial cueing paradigms.
  • Highlights the importance of considering target characteristics in the design and interpretation of visual perception and attention experiments.