English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Spatial cues help participants detect a visual target when it appears at the cued location. One hypothesis for this cueing effect, called selective perception, is that cueing a location enhances perceptual encoding at that location. Another hypothesis, called selective decision, is that the cue has no effect on perception, but instead provides prior information that facilitates decision-making. We distinguished these hypotheses by comparing a simultaneous display with two spatial locations to sequential displays with two temporal intervals. The simultaneous condition had a partially valid spatial cue, and the sequential condition had a partially valid temporal cue. Selective perception predicts no cueing effect for sequential displays given there is enough time to switch attention. In contrast, selective decision predicts cueing effects for sequential displays regardless of time. We used endogenous cueing of a detection-like coarse orientation discrimination task with clear displays (no external noise or postmasks). Results showed cueing effects for the sequential condition, supporting a decision account of selective attention for endogenous cueing of detection-like tasks.

Endogenous cueing effects for detection can be accounted for by a decision model of selective attention