We apply three alternate definitions of "attractor" to cellular automata. Examples are given to show that using the different definitions can give different answers to the question "Does this cellular automaton have a periodic attractor?" The three definitions are the topological notion of attractor as used by C. Conley, a more measure-theoretic version given by J. Milnor, and a variant of Milnor’s definition that is based on the concept of the "center of attraction" of an orbit. Restrictions on the types of periodic orbits that can be periodic attractors for cellular automata are described. With any of these definitions, a cellular automaton has at most one periodic attractor. Additionally, if Conley’s definition is used, then a periodic attractor must be a fixed point. Using Milnor’s definition, each point on a periodic attractor must be fixed by all shifts, so the number of symbols used is an upper bound on the period; whether the actual upper bound is
1
1
is unknown. With the third definition this restriction is removed, and examples are given of onedimensional cellular automata on three symbols that have finite "attractors" of arbitrarily large size (with the third definition, a finite attractor is not necessarily a single periodic orbit).