Previous work suggests that both concrete (e.g., hat, shoes) and abstract (e.g., god, devil) concepts with spatial associations engage attentional mechanisms, affecting subsequent target processing above or below fixation. Interestingly, both facilitatory and inhibitory effects have been reported to result from compatibility between target location and the meaning of the concept. To determine the conditions for obtaining these disparate effects, we varied the task (detection vs. discrimination), SOA, and concept type (abstract vs. concrete) across a series of experiments. Results suggest that the nature of the concepts underlies the different attentional effects. With abstract concepts, facilitation was observed across tasks and SOAs. With concrete concepts, inhibition was observed during the discrimination task and for short SOAs. Thus, the particular perceptual and metaphorical associations of a concept mediate their subsequent effects on visual target processing.

Previous work suggests that both concrete (e.g., hat, shoes) and abstract (e.g., god, devil) concepts with spatial associations engage attentional mechanisms, affecting subsequent target processing above or below fixation. Interestingly, both facilitatory and inhibitory effects have been reported to result from compatibility between target location and the meaning of the concept. To determine the conditions for obtaining these disparate effects, we varied the task (detection vs. discrimination), SOA, and concept type (abstract vs. concrete) across a series of experiments. Results suggest that the nature of the concepts underlies the different attentional effects. With abstract concepts, facilitation was observed across tasks and SOAs. With concrete concepts, inhibition was observed during the discrimination task and for short SOAs. Thus, the particular perceptual and metaphorical associations of a concept mediate their subsequent effects on visual target processing.

No description available.