Selective inhibition of distracting input

Distractor probabilities modulate flanker task performance

Expectations about upcoming events help humans to effectively filter out potential distractors and respond more efficiently to task-relevant inputs. While previous work has emphasized the role of expectations about task-relevant inputs, less is known about the role that expectations play in suppressing specific distractors. To address this question, we manipulated the probabilities of different flanker configurations in the Eriksen flanker task. Across four studies, we found robust evidence for sensitivity to the probability of flankers, with an approximately logarithmic relationship between the likelihood of a particular flanker configuration and the accuracy of subjects' responses. Subjects were also sensitive to length of runs of repeated targets, but minimally sensitive to length of runs of repeated flankers. Two studies used chevron stimuli, and two used letters (confirming that results generalize with greater dissimilarity between stimuli). Expanding the set of stimuli (thus reducing the dominance of any one exemplar) eliminated the effect. Our findings suggest that expectations about distractors form in response to statistical regularities at multiple timescales, and that their effects are strongest when stimuli are geometrically similar and subjects are able to respond to trials quickly. Unexpected distractors could disrupt performance, most likely via a form of attentional capture. This work demonstrates how expectations can influence attention in complex cognitive settings, and illuminates the multiple, nested factors that contribute.

Top-down control of saccades requires inhibition of suddenly appearing stimuli

Humans scan their visual environment using saccade eye movements. Where we look is influenced by bottom-up salience and top-down factors, like value. For reactive saccades in response to suddenly appearing stimuli, it has been shown that short-latency saccades are biased towards salience, and that top-down control increases with increasing latency. Here, we show, in a series of six experiments, that this transition towards top-down control is not determined by the time it takes to integrate value information into the saccade plan, but by the time it takes to inhibit suddenly appearing salient stimuli. Participants made consecutive saccades to three fixation crosses and a vertical bar consisting of a high-salient and a rewarded low-salient region. Endpoints on the bar were biased towards salience whenever it appeared or reappeared shortly before the last saccade was initiated. This was also true when the eye movement was already planned. When the location of the suddenly appearing salient region was predictable, saccades were aimed in the opposite direction to nullify this sudden onset effect. Successfully inhibiting salience, however, could only be achieved by previewing the target. These findings highlight the importance of inhibition for top-down eye-movement control.

Changes in visual cortical processing attenuate singleton distraction during visual search

The ability to suppress distractions is essential to successful completion of goal-directed behaviors. Several behavioral studies have recently provided strong evidence that learned suppression may be particularly efficient in reducing distractor interference. Expectations about a distractor's repeated location, color, or even presence are rapidly learned and used to attenuate interference. In this study, we use a visual search paradigm in which a color singleton, which is known to capture attention, occurs within blocks with high or low frequency. The behavioral results show reduced singleton interference during the high compared to the low frequency block (Won et al., 2019). The fMRI results provide evidence that the attenuation of distractor interference is supported by changes in singleton, target, and non-salient distractor representations within retinotopic visual cortex. These changes in visual cortex are accompanied by findings that singleton-present trials compared to non-singleton trials produce greater activation in bilateral parietal cortex, indicative of attentional capture, in low frequency, but not high frequency blocks. Together, these results suggest that the readout of saliency signals associated with an expected color singleton from visual cortex is suppressed, resulting in less competition for attentional priority in frontoparietal attentional control regions.

Time contraction caused by a distractor in children and adults: The influence of inhibition capacities

The aim of this study was to examine the cognitive processes involved in time contraction caused by a non-temporal distractor during the presentation of a temporal stimulus. To this aim 95 children aged 5 to 8 years old as well as 25 adults were first trained to discriminate, on two visual temporal bisection tasks, a short standard duration (400 or 600 ms) from a long one (1500 or 2400 ms). They had then to decide whether intermediate stimulus duration was more similar to the short or to the long standard duration. Furthermore, a 40 ms distractor taking the form of a 4 cm diameter rosette, either did or did not appear during the temporal stimulus. Participants' task was to report whether they had been exposed to the short or long standard duration. Subsequently, each subject's capacities in terms of memory skills (short term and working memory), as well as attention (selective attention and inhibition), were assessed using different neuropsychological tests. The results showed a shortening effect of the perceived time from non-distractor to distractor trials, which also turned out to attenuate with the age increase. Interestingly, inhibition was found to mediate this effect while the other cognitive variables were found to be of no significance. We therefore discussed the importance of categorizing two attentional interferences: one related to attention control and the other to attentional resources.

Attentional Control in Subclinical Anxiety and Depression: Depression Symptoms Are Associated With Deficits in Target Facilitation, Not Distractor Inhibition

Mood and anxiety disorders are associated with deficits in attentional control involving emotive and non-emotive stimuli. Current theories focus on impaired attentional inhibition of distracting stimuli in producing these deficits. However, standard attention tasks struggle to separate distractor inhibition from target facilitation. Here, we investigate whether distractor inhibition underlies these deficits using neutral stimuli in a behavioral task specifically designed to tease apart these two attentional processes. Healthy participants performed a four-location Posner cueing paradigm and completed self-report questionnaires measuring depressive symptoms and trait anxiety. Using regression analyses, we found no relationship between distractor inhibition and mood symptoms or trait anxiety. However, we find a relationship between target facilitation and depression. Specifically, higher depressive symptoms were associated with reduced target facilitation in a task-version in which the target location repeated over a block of trials. We suggest this may relate to findings previously linking depression with deficits in predictive coding in clinical populations.

Distinct neural substrates underlying target facilitation and distractor suppression: A combined voxel-based morphometry and resting-state functional connectivity study

Selective attention, the ability to filter relevant from a sea of sensory information, relies on the prioritization of goal-relevant information (target facilitation) and the suppression of goal-irrelevant information (distractor suppression). Although several lines of evidence have shown that target facilitation and distractor suppression were mediated by distinct mechanisms, the underlying neural substrates remain unclear. To address this question, we acquired structural and resting-state magnetic resonance imaging scans, as well as behavioral data from a modified Posner cueing task. Specifically, the location of a target (Target Cue, TC) and a distractor (Distractor Cue, DC) was either cued in advance to separately trigger target facilitation and distractor suppression, or no predictive information was provided, serving as a baseline. We combined voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) analyses to explore the neural correlates of behavioral benefits, yielding the following results. First, behavioral data showed faster responses to TC and DC conditions compared to baseline, the benefits of which were named TC-benefit and DC-benefit. Second, the VBM analysis revealed that the gray matter volume (GMV) in the superior frontal (SFG) and postcentral gyrus inversely correlated with individual TC-benefit, while the GMV in the superior parietal lobe, middle frontal gyrus, and angular gyrus inversely correlated with individual DC-benefit, indicating that target facilitation and distractor suppression was associated with the GMV of distinct and distributed regions in the frontoparietal cortex. Third, the rsFC analysis with the SFG as a seed region further found distinct patterns of rsFC for target facilitation and distractor suppression. Specifically, individual TC-benefit were positively correlated with distributed connections between the SFG and brain regions, mainly within the ventral attention and somato-motor network; but individual DC-benefit were positively correlated with centralized connections between the SFG and brain regions, mainly within the frontoparietal, dorsal attention and ventral attention network. Finally, a multiple linear regression analysis showed that the GMV and rsFC could jointly explain individual differences in TC- and DC-benefit. Taken together, these results provided neural evidence for different structural and functional substrates underlying target facilitation and distractor suppression.

Irrelevant Predictions: Distractor Rhythmicity Modulates Neural Encoding in Auditory Cortex

Dynamic attending theory suggests that predicting the timing of upcoming sounds can assist in focusing attention toward them. However, whether similar predictive processes are also applied to background noises and assist in guiding attention “away” from potential distractors, remains an open question. Here we address this question by manipulating the temporal predictability of distractor sounds in a dichotic listening selective attention task. We tested the influence of distractors’ temporal predictability on performance and on the neural encoding of sounds, by comparing the effects of Rhythmic versus Nonrhythmic distractors. Using magnetoencephalography we found that, indeed, the neural responses to both attended and distractor sounds were affected by distractors’ rhythmicity. Baseline activity preceding the onset of Rhythmic distractor sounds was enhanced relative to nonrhythmic distractor sounds, and sensory response to them was suppressed. Moreover, detection of nonmasked targets improved when distractors were Rhythmic, an effect accompanied by stronger lateralization of the neural responses to attended sounds to contralateral auditory cortex. These combined behavioral and neural results suggest that not only are temporal predictions formed for task-irrelevant sounds, but that these predictions bear functional significance for promoting selective attention and reducing distractibility.

Inhibition in selective attention

Our ability to focus on goal-relevant aspects of the environment is critically dependent on our ability to ignore or inhibit distracting information. One perspective is that distractor inhibition is under similar voluntary control as attentional facilitation of target processing. However, a rapidly growing body of research shows that distractor inhibition often relies on prior experience with the distracting information or other mechanisms that need not rely on active representation in working memory. Yet, how and when these different forms of inhibition are neurally implemented remains largely unclear. Here, we review findings from recent behavioral and neuroimaging studies to address this outstanding question. We specifically explore how experience with distracting information may change the processing of that information in the context of current predictive processing views of perception: by modulating a distractor's representation already in anticipation of the distractor, or after integration of top-down and bottom-up sensory signals. We also outline directions for future research necessary to enhance our understanding of how the brain filters out distracting information.

Higher Cardiorespiratory Fitness is Associated with Reduced Functional Brain Connectivity During Performance of the Stroop Task

Background:

Although higher cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has been linked to better executive function, the mechanisms by which this occurs remain a matter of speculation. One hypothesis is that higher CRF is associated with elevated top-down control in which brain regions processing task-relevant information are up-regulated and brain regions processing task-irrelevant information are down-regulated.

Methods:

We tested this top-down hypothesis in 50 young adults (μ age = 25.22 ± 5.17 years) by measuring CRF via a graded maximal exercise test and performing functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) during a color-word Stroop task. We used task-evoked functional connectivity, quantified from a psychophysiological interaction analysis (PPI), to test our hypotheses that (a) higher CRF would be associated with greater connectivity between control centers (i.e., prefrontal and parietal areas) and visual feature centers (i.e., occipital areas) that are involved with processing task-relevant stimulus dimensions (i.e., color), and (b) higher CRF would be associated with lower connectivity between control centers and visual feature centers that are involved with processing task-irrelevant dimensions of the stimuli (i.e., word processing areas).

Results:

Controlling for sex and BMI, we found, consistent with our second hypothesis, that higher CRF was associated with reduced functional connectivity between parietal and occipital areas involved in the task-irrelevant dimension of the task (i.e., word form areas). There were no associations between CRF and functional connectivity with the prefrontal cortex or evidence of heightened connectivity between attentional control and visual feature centers.

Conclusions:

These results suggest that CRF associations with executive functioning might be explained by CRF-mediated differences between brain regions involved with attentional control (parietal regions) and the down-regulation of regions involved with processing task-irrelevant stimulus features (occipital regions).

Oscillatory Control over Representational States in Working Memory

In the visual world, attention is guided by perceptual goals activated in visual working memory (VWM). However, planning multiple-task sequences also requires VWM to store representations for future goals. These future goals need to be prevented from interfering with the current perceptual task. Recent findings have implicated neural oscillations as a control mechanism serving the implementation and switching of different states of prioritization of VWM representations. We review recent evidence that posterior alpha-band oscillations underlie the flexible activation and deactivation of VWM representations and that frontal delta-to-theta-band oscillations play a role in the executive control of this process. That is, frontal delta-to-theta appears to orchestrate posterior alpha through long-range oscillatory networks to flexibly set up and change VWM states during multitask sequences.

Alpha Oscillations in the Human Brain Implement Distractor Suppression Independent of Target Selection

In principle, selective attention is the net result of target selection and distractor suppression. The way in which both mechanisms are implemented neurally has remained contested. Neural oscillatory power in the alpha frequency band (∼10 Hz) has been implicated in the selection of to-be-attended targets, but there is lack of empirical evidence for its involvement in the suppression of to-be-ignored distractors. Here, we use electroencephalography recordings of N = 33 human participants (males and females) to test the preregistered hypothesis that alpha power directly relates to distractor suppression and thus operates independently from target selection. In an auditory spatial pitch discrimination task, we modulated the location (left vs right) of either a target or a distractor tone sequence, while fixing the other in the front. When the distractor was fixed in the front, alpha power relatively decreased contralaterally to the target and increased ipsilaterally. Most importantly, when the target was fixed in the front, alpha lateralization reversed in direction for the suppression of distractors on the left versus right. These data show that target-selection-independent alpha power modulation is involved in distractor suppression. Although both lateralized alpha responses for selection and for suppression proved reliable, they were uncorrelated and distractor-related alpha power emerged from more anterior, frontal cortical regions. Lending functional significance to suppression-related alpha oscillations, alpha lateralization at the individual, single-trial level was predictive of behavioral accuracy. These results fuel a renewed look at neurobiological accounts of selection-independent suppressive filtering in attention.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Although well established models of attention rest on the assumption that irrelevant sensory information is filtered out, the neural implementation of such a filter mechanism is unclear. Using an auditory attention task that decouples target selection from distractor suppression, we demonstrate that two sign-reversed lateralized alpha responses reflect target selection versus distractor suppression. Critically, these alpha responses are reliable, independent of each other, and generated in more anterior, frontal regions for suppression versus selection. Prediction of single-trial task performance from alpha modulation after stimulus onset agrees with the view that alpha modulation bears direct functional relevance as a neural implementation of attention. Results demonstrate that the neurobiological foundation of attention implies a selection-independent alpha oscillatory mechanism to suppress distraction.

Distractor ignoring: strategies, learning, and passive filtering

Our sensory environments contain more information than we can processes and successful behaviors require the ability to separate task-relevant information from task-irrelevant information. While much research on attention has focused on the mechanisms that result in selection of desired information, much less is known about how distracting information is ignored. Here we describe evidence that strategic, learned, and passive information can all contribute to better distractor ignoring. The evidence suggests that there are multiple ways in which distractor ignoring is supported that may be different than those of target selection. Future work will need to identify the mechanisms by which each source of information adjusts attentional priority such that irrelevant information is better ignored.

Oscillatory Mechanisms of Preparing for Visual Distraction

Evidence shows that observers preactivate a target representation in preparation of a visual selection task. In this study, we addressed the question if and how preparing to ignore an anticipated distractor differs from preparing for an anticipated target. We measured EEG while participants memorized a laterally presented color, which was cued to be either a target or a distractor in two subsequent visual search tasks. Decoding the location of items in the search display from EOG channels revealed that, initially, the anticipated distractor attracted attention and could only be ignored later during the trial. This suggests that distractors could not be suppressed in advance but were represented in an active, attention-guiding format. Consistent with this, lateralized posterior alpha power did not dissociate between target and distractor templates during the delay periods, suggesting similar encoding and maintenance. However, distractor preparation did lead to relatively enhanced nonlateralized posterior alpha power, which appeared to gate sensory processing at search display onset to prevent attentional capture in general. Finally, anticipating distractors also led to enhanced midfrontal theta power during the delay period, a signal that was predictive of how strongly both target and distractor were represented in the search display. Together, our results speak against a distractor-specific advance inhibitory template, thus contrary to the preactivation of specific target templates. Rather, we demonstrate a general selection suppression mechanism, which serves to prevent initial involuntary capture by anticipated distracting input.

Unintentional forgetting is beyond cognitive control

Intentional forgetting refers to the attempt to marshal top-down control to purposefully forget, and has been demonstrated in the laboratory using directed forgetting paradigms. Here, we asked whether the mechanisms of top-down control can run in the opposite direction to prevent the forgetting of information; that is, can we actively resist unintentional forgetting? Recognition-induced forgetting is an unintentional forgetting effect in which accessing one memory leads to the forgetting of related memories. Just as intentional forgetting possesses intuitively appealing control over eliminating undesirable memories, resisting unintentional forgetting over desired memories would improve cognitive performance. We showed subjects a 9-min video to teach them about the recognition-induced forgetting paradigm and how recognition of certain objects unintentionally leads to forgetting of semantically related objects. After testing their comprehension of the video, we conducted a typical recognition-induced forgetting experiment and challenged the subjects to resist this form of unintentional forgetting. Despite their knowledge of the forgetting effect, and the challenge to subjects to resist the forgetting induced by the paradigm, recognition-induced forgetting persisted. These results show that knowledge of this unintentional forgetting phenomenon and the challenge to resist forgetting do not eliminate it, suggesting that it is cognitively impenetrable.

Learning What Is Irrelevant or Relevant: Expectations Facilitate Distractor Inhibition and Target Facilitation through Distinct Neural Mechanisms

It is well known that attention can facilitate performance by top-down biasing processing of task-relevant information in advance. Recent findings from behavioral studies suggest that distractor inhibition is not under similar direct control but strongly dependent on expectations derived from previous experience. Yet, how expectations about distracting information influence distractor inhibition at the neural level remains unclear. The current study addressed this outstanding question in three experiments in which search displays with repeating distractor or target locations across trials allowed human observers (male and female) to learn which location to selectively suppress or boost. Behavioral findings demonstrated that both distractor and target location learning resulted in more efficient search, as indexed by faster response times. Crucially, distractor learning benefits were observed without target location foreknowledge, unaffected by the number of possible target locations, and could not be explained by priming alone. To determine how distractor location expectations facilitated performance, we applied a spatial encoding model to EEG data to reconstruct activity in neural populations tuned to distractor or target locations. Target location learning increased neural tuning to target locations in advance, indicative of preparatory biasing. This sensitivity increased after target presentation. By contrast, distractor expectations did not change preparatory spatial tuning. Instead, distractor expectations reduced distractor-specific processing, as reflected in the disappearance of the Pd event-related potential component, a neural marker of distractor inhibition, and decreased decoding accuracy. These findings suggest that the brain may no longer process expected distractors as distractors, once it has learned they can safely be ignored.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT We constantly try hard to ignore conspicuous events that distract us from our current goals. Surprisingly, and in contrast to dominant attention theories, ignoring distracting, but irrelevant, events does not seem to be as flexible as is focusing our attention on those same aspects. Instead, distractor suppression appears to strongly rely on learned, context-dependent expectations. Here, we investigated how learning about upcoming distractors changes distractor processing and directly contrasted the underlying neural dynamics to target learning. We show that, while target learning enhanced anticipatory sensory tuning, distractor learning only modulated reactive suppressive processing. These results suggest that expected distractors may no longer be considered distractors by the brain once it has learned that they can safely be ignored.

Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence for attentional up-regulation, but not down-regulation, when encoding pictures into long-term memory

Visual long-term memory allows us to store a virtually infinite amount of visual information (Brady, Konkle, Alvarez, & Oliva in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(38), 14325-14329, 2008; Standing in Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(2), 207-222, 1973). However, our ability to encode new visual information fluctuates from moment to moment. In Experiment 1, we tested the hypothesis that we have voluntary control over these periodic fluctuations in our ability to encode representations into visual long-term memory using a precueing paradigm combined with behavioral and electrophysiological indices of memory encoding. We found that visual memory encoding can be up-regulated, but it was much more difficult, if not impossible, to down-regulate encoding on a trial-by-trial basis. In Experiment 2, we tested the hypothesis that voluntary up-regulation of visual memory encoding for an item incurs a cost to memory encoding of other items by manipulating the cueing probability. Here, we found that, although the cueing benefit was constant for both low (20%) and high (50%) cueing probabilities, the benefit in the high cueing probability condition came with the overall impairment of memory encoding. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that top-down control of visual long-term memory encoding may be primarily to prioritize certain memories, but this prioritization has a cost and should not be overused to avoid its negative consequences.

Thalamic regulation of switching between cortical representations enables cognitive flexibility

Interactions between the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and mediodorsal thalamus (MD) are critical for cognitive flexibility, yet the underlying computations are unknown. To investigate fronto-thalamic substrates of cognitive flexibility, we developed a behavioral task, where mice switched between different sets of learned cues that guided attention towards either visual or auditory targets. We found that PFC responses reflected both the individual cues and their meaning as task rules, indicating a hierarchical cue-to-rule transformation. Conversely, MD responses reflected the statistical regularity of cue presentation, and were required for switching between such experimentally-specified cueing contexts. A subset of these thalamic responses sustained context-relevant PFC representations, while another suppressed the context-irrelevant ones. Through modeling and experimental validation, we find that thalamic-mediated suppression may not only reduce PFC representational interference but could also preserve unused cortical traces for future use. Overall, our study provides a computational foundation for thalamic engagement in cognitive flexibility.