Memory for the final location of a moving target is often displaced in the direction of anticipated target motion, and this has been called representational momentum. How the attention influence the representational momentum is a question of empirical and theoretical interest. Hayes and Freyd’s (2002) experiments the manipulation of attention occurred during presentation of the target and was relatively long in duration, in which forward displacement increased with decreases in attention. Whereas in Kerzel’s(2003) experiments, the manipulation of attention occurred after the target vanished and was relatively short in duration, in which forward displacement decreased with decreases in attention. In an attempt to consider whether differences in the timing and duration of the attention manipulation can account for the different results of Hayes and Freyd and of Kerzel, Hubbard, Kumar & Charlotte (2009) presented cue was always located at the coordinates of the final inducing stimulus and, and the duration of the cue was 250ms. The decrease was larger when the cue was present during the retention interval than when the cue was present during the final inducing stimulus. Thus, timing of the cue relative to when the probe was present, rather than duration of the cue, determined the influence of the cue on displacement. The during of target motion and the during the final inducing stimulus are not the same, but the during of target motion contained during the final inducing stimulus. So we presented the different duration within the during of target motion (1250ms，1750ms，2250ms，2750ms) and the same duration within the during of retention interval(250ms). The cue presented at the same display coordinates of the first position of a horizontally moving target. The research included two experiments. In experiment l, the cue was presented the different duration within the during of target motion, and the cue was not presented the same duration within the during of retention interval. In experiment 2, the cue was not presented the different duration within the during of target motion, and the cue was presented the same duration within the during of retention interval. Each experiment has third-two participants and each group has eight participants. Each participant received 112 trials [3(Cue: present, absent) × 2(direction of motion: left, right) × 7(probes: -15,-10,-5, 0, +5, +10, +15) × 4 replications] in a different random order. The experiments resulted in three main findings: First, the cue was presented during of target motion, forward displacement of target didn’t significantly decreased, relative to when a cue was absent. Representational momentum was significant. Second, presentation of the cue during the retention interval, displacement of the target was opposite to the direction of motion. Third, the different durations within the during of target motion didn’t significantly influenced the representational momentum. These results suggested that timing of the cue, rather than duration of the low-relevant cue, determined the influence of the cue on displacement. More importantly, the cue provided information regarding the final location of the target, which suggested that representational momentum was a control process. The different durations within the during of target motion didn’t significantly influenced the representational momentum, which suggested that representational momentum was at least partly automatic. To the further verified the two-process theory of representational momentum.