Attentional capture by auto- and allo-cues

Rauschenberger, Robert · 2003 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.3758/bf03196545

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This review article by Robert Rauschenberger addresses the fragmented state of research on attentional capture, where contradictory findings often arise from the use of disparate experimental paradigms. The author proposes a methodological taxonomy to organize the literature, aiming to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches. The classification scheme is based on two dimensions: the relationship between the attention-capturing stimulus (the cue) and the stimulus used to assess attention (the probe), and whether capture is indexed by performance benefits or costs. This framework distinguishes between "allo-cues," where the cue and probe are separate items, and "auto-cues," where the cue serves as its own probe. The review analyzes the temporal and methodological properties of these paradigms. Allo-cue paradigms typically show delayed effects, with attentional shifts emerging only at longer stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), whereas auto-cue paradigms can produce effects at zero SOA. The author argues that relying on performance benefits as a measure of capture is problematic because it may reflect prioritization in a search queue rather than involuntary spatial attention shifts. Similarly, performance costs may stem from non-spatial factors. The review surveys evidence regarding static cues, such as feature singletons (e.g., color or shape differences). It concludes that while singletons are highly salient and facilitate efficient detection ("pop-out"), there is little compelling evidence that they involuntarily capture spatial attention. Studies using the "1/d paradigm," where the singleton is the target only rarely, suggest that observers use singletons as landmarks to guide search rather than having their attention automatically drawn to them. The significance of this work lies in its unified methodological framework, which allows for a more parsimonious discourse on attentional capture. By separating paradigms based on cue-probe relationships and operational definitions of capture, the review elucidates why certain findings conflict. It challenges the assumption that salient features automatically capture attention, suggesting instead that such features may guide voluntary search strategies. This distinction is crucial for understanding the mechanisms of involuntary attention shifts and for designing experiments that can reliably differentiate between true attentional capture and other forms of attentional guidance.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• attention selective divided
• inattentional change blindness
• visual search
• multisensory crossmodal
• peripheral attention