The spotlight and gradient theories In attention research, one prominent theory attempting to explain how visual attention is shifted is the moving-spotlight theory. The primary idea being that attention is like a movable spotlight that is directed towards intended targets, focusing on each target in a serial manner. When information is illuminated by the spotlight, hence attended, processing proceeds in a more efficient manner, directing attention to a particular point and inhibiting input from any stimuli outside of the spotlight. However, when a shift of spatial attention occurs, the spotlight is, in effect, turned off while attention shifts to the next attended location. Attention, however, has also been proposed to adhere to a gradient theory in which attentional resources are given to a region in space rather than a spotlight, so that attentional resources are most concentrated at the center of attentional focus and then decrease the further a stimuli is from the center. Attention in this theory reflects both current and previous attentional allocation, so that attention can build up and decay across more than one attentional fixation over time. This means that time to detect a target may be dependent upon where attention was directed before the target was presented and attention needed to be shifted.
Space- and object-based attention components were examined in neurologically normal and parietal-lesion subjects, who detected a luminance change at 1 of 4 ends of 2 outline rectangles. One rectangle end was precued (75\% valid); on invalid-cue trials, the target appeared at the other end of the cued rectangle or at 1 end of the uncued rectangle. For normals, the cost for invalid cues was greater for targets in the uncued rectangle, indicating an object-based component. Both rightand left-hemisphere patients showed costs that were greater for contralesional targets. For righthemisphere patients, the object cost was equivalent for contralesional and ipsilesional targets,indicating a spatial deficit, whereas the object cost for left-hemisphere patients was larger for contralesional targets, indicating an object deficit
R
The spotlight and gradient theories In attention research, one prominent theory attempting to explain how visual attention is shifted is the moving-spotlight theory. The primary idea being that attention is like a movable spotlight that is directed towards intended targets, focusing on each target in a serial manner. When information is illuminated by the spotlight, hence attended, processing proceeds in a more efficient manner, directing attention to a particular point and inhibiting input from any stimuli outside of the spotlight. However, when a shift of spatial attention occurs, the spotlight is, in effect, turned off while attention shifts to the next attended location. Attention, however, has also been proposed to adhere to a gradient theory in which attentional resources are given to a region in space rather than a spotlight, so that attentional resources are most concentrated at the center of attentional focus and then decrease the further a stimuli is from the center. Attention in this theory reflects both current and previous attentional allocation, so that attention can build up and decay across more than one attentional fixation over time. This means that time to detect a target may be dependent upon where attention was directed before the target was presented and attention needed to be shifted.
Space- and object-based attention components were examined in neurologically normal and parietal-lesion subjects, who detected a luminance change at 1 of 4 ends of 2 outline rectangles. One rectangle end was precued (75\% valid); on invalid-cue trials, the target appeared at the other end of the cued rectangle or at 1 end of the uncued rectangle. For normals, the cost for invalid cues was greater for targets in the uncued rectangle, indicating an object-based component. Both rightand left-hemisphere patients showed costs that were greater for contralesional targets. For righthemisphere patients, the object cost was equivalent for contralesional and ipsilesional targets,indicating a spatial deficit, whereas the object cost for left-hemisphere patients was larger for contralesional targets, indicating an object deficit