When these features become highly familiar, they may start to guide attention in automatic fashion [38], [39] even though the visual features associated with foods would not be visually highly salient (c.f. saliency data from Experiment 1).
Specifically, there may be differences in the ability to use an attentional set to guide attention and in turn the implementation of that attentional set during stimulus processing when completing a visual search.
Our findings suggest that feature congestion, which is a low-level exogenous influence on gaze location (Rosenholtz et al., 2007), may be used in TotTV to guide attention both to the semantically most important part of the frame (the face) and to the semantically most important part of the face (the eyes).
Howe & Derbish, (2010) argue that during the processing of information related to survival, any related information in memory is then primed, which may or may not be false, but that this information is then used to guide attention to other survival-related items, which may be crucial in the current situation (Howe & Derbish, 2010).
In summary, our findings suggest that the designers of TotTV may have intuited techniques for using low-level information content to guide attention to the semantically important elements within the frame.
However, because both the base and the target experiences may be viewed differently by teacher and learner (Duit et al., 2001, and references therein), it is important to guide attention to relationships between elements common to each.
This salience map is used subsequently to guide attention.
Likely, both of these processes are intrinsic to MOT, as grouping can guide attention, and attention can facilitate grouping [5].
Unsigned RPE can be used to guide attention.
Information held in working memory (WM) can guide attention during visual search.
