Memory guidance in distractor suppression is governed by the availability of cognitive control

Information stored in the memory systems can affect visual search. Previous studies have shown that holding the to-be-ignored features of distractors in working memory (WM) could accelerate target selection. However, such facilitation effect was only observed when the cued to-be-ignored features remained unchanged within an experimental block (i.e., the fixed cue condition). No search benefit was obtained if the to-be-ignored features varied from trial to trial (i.e., the varied cue condition). In the present study, we conducted three behavioral experiments to investigate whether the WM and long-term memory (LTM) representations of the to-be-ignored features could facilitate visual search in the fixed cue (Experiment 1) and varied cue (Experiments 2 and 3) conditions. Given the importance of the processing time of cognitive control in distractor suppression, we divided visual search trials into five quintiles based on their reaction times (RTs) and examined the temporal characteristics of the suppression effect. Results showed that both the WM and LTM representations of the to-be-ignored features could facilitate distractor suppression in the fixed cue condition, and the facilitation effects were evident across the quintiles in the RT distribution. However, in the varied cue condition, the RT benefits of the WM-matched distractors occurred only in the trials with the longest RTs, whereas no advantage of the LTM-matched distractors was observed. These results suggest that the effective WM-guided distractor suppression depends on the availability of cognitive control and the LTM-guided suppression occurs only if sufficient WM resource is accessible by LTM reactivation.

Are precues effective in proactively controlling taboo interference during speech production?

This research investigated whether precues engage proactive control to reduce emotional interference during speech production. A picture-word interference task required participants to name target pictures accompanied by taboo, negative, or neutral distractors. Proactive control was manipulated by presenting precues that signalled the type of distractor that would appear on the next trial. Experiment 1 included one block of trials with precues and one without, whereas Experiment 2 mixed precued and uncued trials. Consistent with previous research, picture naming was slowed in both experiments when distractors were taboo or negative compared to neutral, with the greatest slowing effect when distractors were taboo. Evidence that precues engaged proactive control to reduce interference from taboo (but not negative) distractors was found in Experiment 1. In contrast, mixing precued trials in Experiment 2 resulted in no taboo cueing benefit. These results suggest that item-level proactive control can be engaged under certain conditions to reduce taboo interference during speech production, findings that help to refine a role for cognitive control of distraction during speech production.

Polarity-dependent Effects of Biparietal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on the Interplay between Target Location and Distractor Saliency in Visual Attention

Visual attention allows the allocation of limited neural processing resources to stimuli based on their behavioral priorities. The selection of task-relevant visual targets entails the processing of multiple competing stimuli and the suppression of distractors that may be either perceptually salient or perceptually similar to targets. The posterior parietal cortex controls the interaction between top-down (task-driven) and bottom-up (stimulus-driven) processes competing for attentional selection, as well as spatial distribution of attention. Here, we examined whether biparietal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) would modulate the interaction between top-down and bottom-up processes in visual attention. Visual attention function was assessed with a visual discrimination task, in which a lateralized target was presented alone or together with a contralateral, similar or salient, distractor. The accuracy and RTs were measured before and during three stimulation sessions (sham, right anodal/left cathodal, left anodal/right cathodal). The analyses demonstrated (i) polarity-dependent effects of tDCS on the accuracy of target discrimination, but only when the target was presented with a similar distractor; (ii) the tDCS-triggered effects on the accuracy of discriminating targets, accompanied by a similar distractor, varied according to the target location; and (iii) overall detrimental effects of tDCS on RTs were observed, regardless of target location, distractor type, and polarity of the stimulation. We conclude that the observed polarity, distractor type, and target location-dependent effects of biparietal tDCS on the accuracy of target detection resulted from both a modulation of the interaction between top-down and bottom-up attentional processes and the interhemispheric competition mechanisms guiding attentional selection and spatial deployment of attention.

When increasing distraction helps learning: Distractor number and content interact in their effects on memory

Previous work has demonstrated that increasing the number of distractors in a search array can reduce interference from distractor content during target processing. However, it is unclear how this reduced interference influences learning of target information. Here, we investigated how varying the amount and content of distraction present in a learning environment affects visual search and subsequent memory for target items. In two experiments, we demonstrate that the number and content of competing distractors interact in their influence on target selection and memory. Specifically, while increasing the number of distractors present in a search array made target detection more effortful, it did not impair learning and memory for target content. Instead, when the distractors contained category information that conflicted with the target, increasing the number of distractors from one to three actually benefitted learning and memory. These data suggest that increasing numbers of distractors may reduce interference from conflicting conceptual information during encoding.

Lack of Free Choice Reveals the Cost of Having to Search for More Than One Object

It is debated whether people can actively search for more than one object or whether this results in switch costs. Using a gaze-contingent eye-tracking paradigm, we revealed a crucial role for cognitive control in multiple-target search. We instructed participants to simultaneously search for two target objects presented among distractors. In one condition, both targets were available, which gave the observer free choice of what to search for and allowed for proactive control. In the other condition, only one of the two targets was available, so that the choice was imposed, and a reactive mechanism would be required. No switch costs emerged when target choice was free, but switch costs emerged reliably when targets were imposed. Bridging contradictory findings, the results are consistent with models of visual selection in which only one attentional template actively drives selection and in which the efficiency of switching targets depends on the type of cognitive control allowed for by the environment.

Effects of auditory distraction on voluntary movements: exploring the underlying mechanisms associated with parallel processing

Highly demanding cognitive-motor tasks can be negatively influenced by the presence of auditory stimuli. The human brain attempts to partially suppress the processing of potential distractors in order that motor tasks can be completed successfully. The present study sought to further understand the attentional neural systems that activate in response to potential distractors during the execution of movements. Nineteen participants (9 women and 10 men) were administered isometric ankle-dorsiflexion tasks for 10 s at a light intensity. Electroencephalography was used to assess the electrical activity in the brain, and a music excerpt was used to distract participants. Three conditions were administered: auditory distraction during the execution of movement (auditory distraction; AD), movement execution in the absence of auditory distraction (control; CO), and auditory distraction in the absence of movement (stimulus-only; SO). AD was compared with SO to identify the mechanisms underlying the attentional processing associated with attentional shifts from internal association (task-related) to external (task-unrelated) sensory cues. The results of the present study indicated that the EMG amplitude was not compromised when the auditory stimulus was administered. Accordingly, EEG activity was upregulated at 0.368 s in AD when compared to SO. Source reconstruction analysis indicated that right and central parietal regions of the cortex activated at 0.368 s in order to reduce the processing of task-irrelevant stimuli during the execution of movements. The brain mechanisms that underlie the control of potential distractors during exercise were possibly associated with the activity of the frontoparietal network.

Compensation mechanisms that improve distractor filtering are short-lived

We investigated possible compensation mechanisms for improving filtering of distractors from entering visual Working Memory (WM). Participants preformed a change-detection task in which three targets, six targets, or three targets along with three distractors (the filtering trial) were randomly presented. In six experiments, we tried to reduce the filtering cost, calculated as the difference in accuracy between the three targets and the filtering condition, by either cueing the possible locations of the distractors using placeholders (that could be either fixed throughout the experiment or change every trial; i.e., location cue), or by providing the location cue coupled with a warning cue singling the upcoming filtering trial. Results revealed that the filtering cost was not reduced by a fixed location cue (Experiment 1 and Experiment 5). However, the fixed location cue coupled with a warning cue (Experiment 2 and Experiment 5) or a location cue that changed positions every trial (Experiment 6), were sufficient to reduce the filtering cost. Additionally, longer preparation interval for filtering trials did not further reduce the filtering cost (Experiment 3). We argue these findings support that in the context of visual WM, spatial filtering settings can only be held for a limited amount of time. Thus, these filtering settings must be reactivated in order to be effective and to reduce the filtering cost.

Presaccadic target competition attenuates distraction

Although it is well known that salient nontargets can capture attention despite being task irrelevant, several studies have reported short fixation dwell times, suggesting the presence of an attentional mechanism to "rapidly reject" dissimilar distractors. Rapid rejection has been hypothesized to depend on the strong mismatch between distractor features and the target template, but it is unknown whether the presence of strong feature mismatch is sufficient, or if the presence of a target at a competing location is also necessary. Here, we investigated this question by first replicating the finding of rapid rejection for dissimilar distractors in the presence of a concurrent target (Experiment 1); manipulating the onset of the target stimulus relative to the distractor (Experiment 2); and using a saccade-contingent display to delay the target onset until after the first saccade was initiated. The results demonstrate that the speed of distractor rejection depends on the presence of target competition prior to the initiation of the first saccade, and not after the saccade. This suggests that stimulus competition for covert attention sets a "saccade priority map" that unfolds over time, resulting in faster corrective saccades to an anticipated object with higher top-down attentional priority.

A Normalization Framework for Emotional Attention

The normalization model of attention proposes that attention can affect performance by response- or contrast-gain changes, depending on the size of the stimulus and attention field. Here, we manipulated the attention field by emotional valence, negative faces versus positive faces, while holding stimulus size constant in a spatial cueing task. We observed changes in the cueing effect consonant with changes in response gain for negative faces and contrast gain for positive faces. Neuroimaging experiments confirmed that subjects’ attention fields were narrowed for negative faces and broadened for positive faces. Importantly, across subjects, the self-reported emotional strength of negative faces and positive faces correlated, respectively, both with response- and contrast-gain changes and with primary visual cortex (V1) narrowed and broadened attention fields. Effective connectivity analysis showed that the emotional valence-dependent attention field was closely associated with feedback from the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) to V1. These findings indicate a crucial involvement of DLPFC in the normalization processes of emotional attention.

Using a combination of psychophysics and functional MRI, this study reveals that emotional attention interacts with normalization processes depending on emotional valence (positive or negative faces), best explained by feedback modulation from the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

Attentional selection is the mechanism by which the subset of incoming information is preferentially processed at the expense of distractors. The normalization model of attention suggests that attention-triggered modulatory effects on sensory responses in the visual cortex depend on two factors: the stimulus size and the attention field size. However, little is known regarding whether emotional attention shapes perception by means of the normalization framework. To test this hypothesis, we manipulated the attention field by emotional valence—negative faces versus positive faces—while holding the stimulus size constant in a spatial cueing task. We observed that attention increased response gain for negative faces, with the largest cueing effects occurring at high contrasts and little to no effect at low and mid-contrasts; however, attention increased contrast gain for positive faces, with the largest cueing effects occurring at mid-contrasts and little to no effect at low and high contrasts. A complementary neuroimaging experiment confirmed that subjects' attention fields were narrowed for negative faces and broadened for positive faces. Across subjects, the self-reported emotional strength of negative faces and positive faces correlated, respectively, both with response-gain and contrast-gain changes and with narrowed and broadened attention fields in the primary visual cortex. Mechanistically, we found that the emotional valence-dependent attention field was closely associated with feedback from the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex to the primary visual cortex. Our findings provide evidence for a normalization framework for emotional attention and for the critical role of feedback from the prefrontal cortex to the early visual cortex in this normalization.

Proactive, but Not Reactive, Distractor Filtering Relies on Local Modulation of Alpha Oscillatory Activity

Filter mechanisms that prevent irrelevant information from consuming the limited storage capacity of visual STM are critical for goal-directed behavior. Alpha oscillatory activity has been related to proactive filtering of anticipated distraction. Yet, distraction in everyday life is not always anticipated, necessitating rapid, reactive filtering mechanisms. Currently, the oscillatory mechanisms underlying reactive distractor filtering remain unclear. In the current EEG study, we investigated whether reactive filtering of distractors also relies on alpha-band oscillatory mechanisms and explored possible contributions by oscillations in other frequency bands. To this end, participants performed a lateralized change detection task in which a varying and unpredicted number of distractors were presented both in the relevant hemifield, among targets, and in the irrelevant hemifield. Results showed that, whereas proactive distractor filtering was accompanied by lateralization of alpha-band activity over posterior scalp regions, reactive distractor filtering was not associated with modulations of oscillatory power in any frequency band. Yet, behavioral and post hoc ERP analyses clearly showed that participants selectively encoded relevant information. On the basis of these results, we conclude that reactive distractor filtering may not be realized through local modulation of alpha-band oscillatory activity.

Taming the White Bear: Initial Costs and Eventual Benefits of Distractor Inhibition

Previous research indicates that prior information about a target feature, such as its color, can speed search. Can search also be speeded by knowing what a target willnotlook like? In the two experiments reported here, participants searched for target letters. Prior to viewing search displays, participants were prompted either with the color in which one or more nontarget letters would appear (ignore trials) or with no information about the search display (neutral trials). Critically, when participants were given one consistent color to ignore for the duration of the experiment, compared with when they were given no information, there was a cost in reaction time (RT) early in the experiment. However, after extended practice, RTs on ignore trials were significantly faster than RTs on neutral trials, which provides a novel demonstration that knowledge about nontargets can improve search performance for targets. When the to-be-ignored color changed from trial to trial, no RT benefit was observed.

Reward breaks through center-surround inhibition via anterior insula

Focusing attention on a target creates a center-surround inhibition such that distractors located close to the target do not capture attention. Recent research showed that a distractor can break through this surround inhibition when associated with reward. However, the brain basis for this reward-based attention is unclear. In this fMRI study, we presented a distractor associated with high or low reward at different distances from the target. Behaviorally the low-reward distractor did not capture attention and thus did not cause interference, whereas the high-reward distractor captured attention only when located near the target. Neural activity in extrastriate cortex mirrored the behavioral pattern. A comparison between the high-reward and the low-reward distractors presented near the target (i.e., reward-based attention) and a comparison between the high-reward distractors located near and far from the target (i.e., spatial attention) revealed a common frontoparietal network, including inferior frontal gyrus and inferior parietal sulcus as well as the visual cortex. Reward-based attention specifically activated the anterior insula (AI). Dynamic causal modelling showed that reward modulated the connectivity from AI to the frontoparietal network but not the connectivity from the frontoparietal network to the visual cortex. Across participants, the reward-based attentional effect could be predicted both by the activity in AI and by the changes of spontaneous functional connectivity between AI and ventral striatum before and after reward association. These results suggest that AI encodes reward-based salience and projects it to the stimulus-driven attentional network, which enables the reward-associated distractor to break through the surround inhibition in the visual cortex.

Reward-prospect interacts with trial-by-trial preparation for potential distraction

When attending for impending visual stimuli, cognitive systems prepare to identify relevant information while ignoring irrelevant, potentially distracting input. Recent work (Marini et al., 2013) showed that a supramodal distracter-filtering mechanism is invoked in blocked designs involving expectation of possible distracter stimuli, although this entails a cost (distraction-filtering cost) on speeded performance when distracters are expected but not presented. Here we used an arrow-flanker task to study whether an analogous cost, potentially reflecting the recruitment of a specific distraction-filtering mechanism, occurs dynamically when potential distraction is cued trial-to-trial (cued distracter-expectation cost). In order to promote the maximal utilization of cue information by participants, in some experimental conditions the cue also signaled the possibility of earning a monetary reward for fast and accurate performance. This design also allowed us to investigate the interplay between anticipation for distracters and anticipation of reward, which is known to engender attentional preparation. Only in reward contexts did participants show a cued distracter-expectation cost, which was larger with higher reward prospect and when anticipation for both distracters and reward were manipulated trial-to-trial. Thus, these results indicate that reward prospect interacts with the distracter expectation during trial-by-trial preparatory processes for potential distraction. These findings highlight how reward guides cue-driven attentional preparation.