Fig 1.
Schematic view of a trial sequence for both the gaze cue and the arrow cue conditions.
The example represents: A) gaze-cue/placeholder-absent/same-hemifield condition, and B) arrow-cue/placeholder-present/same-location/same-hemifield condition.
Fig 2.
Illustration of the four types of cue-target relation of Experiment 1.
The images represent the gaze-cue in a placeholder-present condition. The cue-target relation for the placeholder-absent condition was the same, with the exception that no placeholder boxes were presented on the scene.
Table 1.
Mean reaction times (RT), standard deviation (SD), and percentage of incorrect responses (%IR) as a function of the placeholder-condition, type of cue, and cue-target (CT) relation in Experiment 1.
Fig 3.
Reaction times (RTs) results from Experiment 1.
Results are shown separately for the general-cueing effect (Same-Location/Same Hemifield vs. Opposite-Location/Opposite Hemifield) and the hemifield-effect (Same-Hemifield vs. Opposite Hemifield). Mean RTs presented for each type of cue as a function of the cue-target relation in the placeholder-present and placeholder-absent conditions. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean, computed following Cousineau’s [31] method to eliminate variability between participants.
Fig 4.
Schematic view of a trial sequence for both the gaze cue and the arrow cue conditions of Experiment 2.
The example represents: A) gaze/placeholder-absent/same-location/same-group condition, B) arrow/placeholder-present/opposite-group condition.
Fig 5.
Illustration of the four types of cue-target relation of Experiments 2.
The placeholder-group tilted orientation shown here is -45˚ from vertical. The top images represent an example of gaze cue in a placeholder-present condition; the bottom images represent the arrow cue in a placeholder-present condition. The cue-target relation for the placeholder-absent condition was the same, with the exception that no placeholder boxes were presented on the scene.
Table 2.
Mean reaction times (RT), standard deviation (SD), and percentage of incorrect responses (%IR) as a function of placeholder-condition, type of cue, and cue-target (CT) relation in Experiment 2.
Fig 6.
Reaction times (RTs) results from Experiment 2.
Results are shown separately for the general-cueing effect and the grouping-effect. Mean RTs presented for each type of cue as a function of the cue-target relation in the placeholder-present and placeholder-absent conditions. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean, computed following Cousineau’s [31] method to eliminate variability between participants.