Spatial cueing effects do not always index attentional capture: Evidence for a Priority Accumulation Framework

In visual search, improved performance when a target appears at a recently cued location is taken as strong evidence that attention was shifted to this cue. Here, we provide evidence challenging the canonical interpretation of spatial-cueing (or cue-validity) effects and supporting the Priority Accumulation Framework (PAF). According to PAF, attentional priority accumulates over time at each location until the search context triggers selection of the highest-priority location. Spatial-cueing effects reflect how long it takes to resolve the competition and can thus be observed even when attention was never shifted to the cue. Here, we used a spatial-cueing paradigm with abruptly onset cues and search displays varying in target-distractor similarity. We show search performance on valid-cue trials deteriorated the more difficult the search, a finding that is incompatible with the standard interpretation of spatial-cueing effects. By using brief displays (Experiment 1) and by examining the effect of search difficulty on the fastest trials (Experiment 2), we invalidate alternative accounts invoking post-perceptual verification processes (Experiment 1) or occasional failures of the onset cue to capture attention (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, we used a combination of the spatial-cueing and dot-probe paradigms. We show that the events that occurred in both the cue and search displays affected attentional distribution, and that the relative attentional priority weight that accumulated at the target location determined how easily the competition was resolved. These findings fully support PAFs predictions. Public significance statementMany studies aim at establishing whether certain objects mandatorily capture our attention. Here, we show that there is no "yes-or-no" answer to this question because the context in which an object appears determines whether this object captures attention. We show that our attention is not shifted to the highest-priority object at any given time: instead, information about priority is collected across time until some signal indicates that the appropriate moment for deploying our attention has arrived. Striking failures to notice conspicuous events routinely illustrate how limited our attentional system is: we can attend to very few objects at any given time, and probably to just one. In natural conditions, when we move the focus of our attention from one object to another, we also shift our gaze towards the attended location: this allows us to place the object of most interest in the center of our fovea, which maximizes the quality of its perceptual processing. Tracking the locus of such overt attention is easily achieved by using eye-tracking devices. However, in order to isolate the benefits of attention from the benefits of visual acuity, one must study covert attention - that is, attentional shifts in the absence of eye movements. These shifts are not directly observable and must therefore be inferred using indirect measures of processing.