Experiment 1 provided a coarse map of the allocation of attention in the display, revealing a hotspot of attention in the middle and less at the edges and corners of the display, where the player could not go and where objects did not interact with the player (as measured with accuracy and reaction time in responding to stochastic probes that appeared in the display). However, these probes were not player-contingent, and instead appeared randomly as the player moved. Any effects of the player's movement at the moment the probe appeared were thus washed out. In Experiment 2, probes were player-contingent. They could be deployed either near to the player or far away, and, critically, could appear in front of or behind the player as they moved from one side of the display to the other. Two main effects revealed themselves: accuracy and reaction time was always higher for near probes than far ones, and higher for probes that appeared in front versus those that appeared behind. So while the behind probes were slower overall, the near-behind probes were detected faster and more accurately than one might guess a-priori, considering that moving backwards acts against the player's goal. This raised a question: were players maintaining attention on the space behind them in case they had to execute a backwards movement to avoid an object? If so, would this attentional advantage persist if they could no longer move backwards, thus rendering the area behind them both goal-contrary and inaccessible? Experiment 3 investigates the relationship between how we are able to move through an environment and how we allocate attention by using the same setup as Experiment 2, but restricting the players' movements so that they can go forward and stop, but never turn back.