Fig 1.
Exemplary subset of the used cueing stimuli.
A) Initial placeholder, B-F) cues B) neutral, C) left, D) right, E) up, F) down. Stimuli are shown to scale, diameter of circles was 6.8 dva.
Fig 2.
A: The four orders of conditions that were used (counterbalanced across participants together with the button assignment to the targets), each condition consisted of one training block and two experimental blocks. B-E: Examples for trials (timeline on the right), B: neutral arrow trial with target on top, C: neutral face trial with target on top, D: face trial with valid cue to the top, E: arrow trial with valid cue to the right. The examples in B to E are not to scale (letters F and T and line width are scaled up for visibility).
Fig 3.
Cueing effects of Experiment 1.
Red and Blue: Individual cueing effects (CE) based on medians of each of the 16 participants for each condition combination. Black: means of the CEs.
Fig 4.
Sequence of blocks in Experiment 2.
A training block (cue type: color) was followed by 7 experimental blocks. In Blocks 2, 5 and 8, the cue type was color; in half of the participants face cues were used in Block 2 and Block 3 and arrow cues in Block 6 and Block 7, for the other half face blocks and arrow blocks were reversed.
Table 1.
Results of Experiment 2a, its replication Experiment 2b and, of the combined samples, Experiment 2 (significant values in bold font).
Note that for consistency, we report follow-up tests on cueType also for Experiment 2a (italics), although the 3 × 1 rmANOVA has only a trend to a main effect of this 3-level factor.
Fig 5.
Cueing effects of Experiment 2a and 2b.
Red and Blue: Individual cueing effects (CE) based on medians of each of the 16 (Experiment 2a) or 23 (Experiment 2b) participants for arrow and face. Black markers and bold black line: means of the CEs. Thin cyan lines: participants who showed larger CE for arrows than for faces; thin black lines: participants with larger CEs for faces than for arrows. Note that in Experiment 2, positive CE values show a reaction time advantage for the predicted direction that is opposite to the stimulus’ inherent direction for arrows and faces.
Fig 6.
A) Fraction of trials in which each participant performed a saccade, participants sorted by the fraction of saccades, long (>2dva) and short (< = 2dva) saccades stacked. B) Histogram of Saccade latencies separated by condition. Only experimental blocks (Blocks 2 through 8) and saccades of more than 2dva were considered. To achieve comparable axes, the absolute number of saccades divided by the number of blocks of the respective cue type is plotted (3 color blocks and 2 arrow and face blocks). C) Cumulative density function for the data of panel B. Gray dashed line shows cue onset and black dashed line shows target onset. Saccade categories: c: saccades against (counter) the predicted direction (following arrow and face, but against color cue), n: saccades of trials with neutral cues, p: saccades in the predicted direction. Saccade onset in ms relative to target onset.