# Studying the Role of Visuospatial Attention in the Multi-Attribute Task Battery II
## 3 Results
### Analyses of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Capture of Visuospatial Attention in the Visual-Search Task
This was true despite the fact that there was only one singleton distractor in each such display, but five nonsingletons, increasing the likelihood of chance fixations on one of the gray nonsingletons discs compared to the singleton distractors. Specifically, in nonmatching conditions, with a target-dissimilar singleton distractor, on average, participants fixated the target-dissimilar singleton distractor about 15 times (\(M\) = 14.65, \(SD\) = 6.96) and the nonsingletons about nine times (\(M\) = 8.55, \(SD\) = 8.12), \(t(107)=5.90\), \(p\) \(<\) 0.001. In matching conditions, with a target-similar singleton distractor present, participants fixated the target-similar singleton distractor about 30 times (\(M\) = 29.46,\(SD=14.87\)) and the nonsingletons about 10 times (\(M=9.77\), \(SD=8.15\)), \(t(107)=12.01\), \(p<0.001\). For a more detailed description, see Table 1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Target-Color** & **Distractor Trial** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Target** \\ **Fixation** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **SD Target** \\ **Fixation** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Nons-** \\ **injection** \\ **Fixation** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **SD Nonsin-** \\ **gleton** \\ **Fixation** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Degrees of** \\ **Freedom** \\ \end{tabular} & **T-Value** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Green-1 (G1) & \begin{tabular}{c} Dissimilar \\ Similar \\ \end{tabular} & 18.07 & 8.41 & 12.03 & 10.30 & 27 & 1.87 & 0.038 \\  & \begin{tabular}{c} Similar \\ \end{tabular} & 19.75 & 10.85 & 13.25 & 10.35 & 27 & 2.25 & 0.028 \\ \hline Green-2 (G2) & \begin{tabular}{c} Dissimilar \\ Similar \\ \end{tabular} & 16.17 & 5.85 & 7.26 & 6.49 & 29 & 5.50 & \textless{}0.001 \\  & \begin{tabular}{c} Similar \\ \end{tabular} & 20.67 & 7.18 & 10.57 & 8.02 & 29 & 5.06 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Red-1 (R1) & \begin{tabular}{c} Dissimilar \\ Similar \\ \end{tabular} & 11.85 & 5.25 & 7.00 & 6.35 & 25 & 2.94 & 0.005 \\  & \begin{tabular}{c} Similar \\ \end{tabular} & 40.08 & 9.97 & 5.73 & 4.98 & 25 & 15.41 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Red-2 (R2) & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Dissimilar \\ Similar \\ \end{tabular} & 14.13 & 6.97 & 7.79 & 7.55 & 23 & 2.95 & 0.005 \\  &
\begin{tabular}{c} Similar \\ \end{tabular} & 40.29 & 15.49 & 9.08 & 5.82 & 23 & 9.04 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Mean fixations of singleton and nonsingleton distractors divided into target color and distractor trial. Figure 5: Linear regressions of bottom-up scores after the Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB-II) on bottom-scores before the MATB-II, as well as between top-down scores after the MATB-II on top-down scores before the MATB-II. Blue dots and orange dots correspond to individual bottom-up and top-down scores in the visual search task, respectively. Since top-down attention-capture scores were calculated as differences in RTs between matching distractor-present trials and nonmatching distractor-present trials, a correlation between the top-down scores and the fixation differences was in order. For the latter, we used the difference between the numbers of times participants looked at a matching singleton distractor versus at a nonmatching singleton distractor, once before and once after the MATB-II (see Figure 7). Both before and after the MATB-II, we can see a clear correlation between the top-down score of the participants and the difference in the numbers of times participants fixated the matching distractors minus the nonmatching distractors (before the MATB-II: \(F[(1,\,47)=27.93,\,p\,<0.001,\,R^{2}=0.373,\,\text{adj. }\,\,R^{2}=0.359,\,r_{s }=0.63,\,p\,<0.001;\) after the MATB-II: \(F(1,\,47)=16.27,\,p\,<0.001,\,R^{2}=0.257,\,\text{adj. }\,\,R^{2}=0.241,\,r_{s }=0.55,\,p\,<0.001)\).