Past research suggests a continuity between perception and memory, as reflected in influences of orienting of spatial attention by cues presented after a visual target offset (post-target cues) on target perception. Conducting two experiments, we tested and confirmed this claim. Our study revealed an elevated reliance on post-target cues for target detection with diminishing target visibility, leading to better performance in validly versus invalidly cued trials, indicative of contrast gain. We demonstrated this post-target cueing impact on target perception without a postcue response prompt, meaning that our results truly reflected a continuity between perception and memory rather than a task-specific impact of having to memorize the target due to a response prompt. While previous studies found an improvement in accuracy through valid compared to invalid cues using liminal targets, in Experiment 1, we further showed an influence of attention on participants’ response time by the post-target cues with cues presented away from a clearly visible target. This suggests that visual interactions at the target location provided no better explanation of post-target cueing effects. Our results generalize prior research with liminal targets and confirm the view of a perception–memory continuum so that visual target processing is not shielded against visuospatial orienting of attention elicited by events following the offset of the visual target.

Past research suggests a continuity between perception and memory, as reflected in influences of orienting of spatial attention by cues presented after a visual target offset (post-target cues) on target perception. Conducting two experiments, we tested and confirmed this claim. Our study revealed an elevated reliance on post-target cues for target detection with diminishing target visibility, leading to better performance in validly versus invalidly cued trials, indicative for contrast gain. We demonstrated this post-target cueing impact on target perception without a postcue response prompt, meaning that our results truly reflected a continuity between perception and memory rather than a task-specific impact of having to memorize the target due to a response prompt. We further showed an influence of attention by the post-target cues with cues presented away from a clearly visible target, meaning that visual interactions at the target location provided no better explanation of our results. Our results generalize prior research with liminal targets and confirm the view of a perception-memory continuum, so that visual target processing is not shielded against visuospatial orienting of attention elicited by events following offset of the visual target.