{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016052880075542966, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0018885741265344666, 'mean_word_length': 5.0227272727272725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
SHIFTS OF COVERT VISUAL ATTENTION : A FUNCTION OF MERIDIA , DISTANCE , AND CUE TYPE MELI MACCURDY

Shifts of covert attention differ depending on whether the shift is exogenously or endogenously motivated. The present study examined whether crossing imaginary meridia in the visual field influences shifts directed by central or peripheral cues. A two-alternative forced-choice discrimination task was employed under direction from 70 % valid central and peripheral cues. In comparison to central cues, peripheral cues produced greater benefits in response time and accuracy when valid, and greater costs in response time and accuracy when invalid. In both cue types distance was the most prominent factor in RTs and accuracy. Meridia were also found to be significant in both cue types, and crossing a horizontal meridian took more time than crossing a vertical meridian. The most parsimonious account for these data in both cue types is a general specific location model of attention, with strong support for a gradient theory from the central cue paradigm.