@article{ref1,
title="The Least Costs Hypothesis: a rational analysis approach to the voluntary symbolic control of attention",
journal="Journal of experimental psychology: human perception and performance",
year="2018",
author="Pauszek, Joseph R. and Gibson, Bradley S.",
volume="44",
number="8",
pages="1199-1215",
abstract="Here we propose a rational analysis account of voluntary symbolic attention control-the Least Costs Hypothesis (LCH)-that construes voluntary control as a decision between intentional cue use and unguided search. Consistent with the LCH, the present study showed that this decision is sensitive to variations in cue processing efficiency. In Experiment 1, observers demonstrated a robust preference for using &quot;easy-to-process&quot; arrow cues but not &quot;hard-to-process&quot; spatial word cues to satisfy an easy visual search goal; Experiment 2 showed that this preference persisted even when the temporal costs of cue processing were neutralized. Experiment 3 showed that observers reported this cue type preference outside the context of a speeded task, and Experiment 4 showed empirical measures of this bias to be relatively stable over the course of the task. Together with previous evidence suggesting that observers' decision between intentional cue use and unguided search is also influenced by variations in unguided search efficiency, these findings suggest that voluntary symbolic attention control is mediated by ongoing metacognitive evaluations of demand that are sensitive to perceived variations in the time, effort, and opportunity costs associated with each course of action. Thus, voluntary symbolic attention control is far more complex than previously held. (PsycINFO Database Record<br><br>(c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0096-1523",
doi="10.1037/xhp0000527",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000527"
}