Figure 1.
Stimulus and target positions (A) and sequence of events within a trial (B).
Figure 2.
Gaze-cueing effects as function of gaze position and target position for (A) high actual and instructed predictivity; for (B) low actual and instructed predictivity.
Depicted error bars represent standard errors of the mean adjusted to within-participants design.
Figure 3.
Gaze-cueing effects as function of gaze position and target position for (A) high actual predictivity and low instructed predictivity; for (B) low actual predictivity and high instructed predictivity.
Depicted error bars represent corrected standard errors of the mean adjusted to within-participants design.
Figure 4.
Comparison between Experiments.
Gaze-cueing effects as function of target position (exact gazed-at position vs. other positions in cued hemifield), instructed predictivity (high: solid line, low: dashed line) and actual predictivity (high: left side, low: right side). Note that the bigger the difference (the steeper the depicted line) between gaze-cueing effects for the exact and the other positions in the cued hemifield, the more specific the allocation of attention to the gazed-at position. Depicted error bars represent corrected standard errors adjusted to within-subject designs.