Interaction between stimulus-driven orienting and top-down modulation in attentional capture

The modulation of expectation violation on attention: Evidence from the spatial cueing effects

The study sought to investigate whether and how expectation violation can modulate attention using the exogenous spatial cueing paradigm, under the theoretical framework of the Memory Encoding Cost (MEC) model. The MEC proposes that exogenous spatial cueing effects are mainly driven by a combination of two distinct mechanisms: attentional facilitation triggered by the presence of an abrupt cue, and attentional suppression induced by memory encoding of the cue. In current experiments, participants needed to identify a target letter that was sometimes preceded by a peripheral onset cue. Various types of expectation violation were introduced by regulating the probability of cue presentation (Experiments 1 & 5), the probability of cue location (Experiments 2 & 4), and the probability of irrelevant sound presentation (Experiment 3). The results showed that expectation violation could enhance the cueing effect (valid vs. invalid cue) in some cases. More crucially, all experiments consistently observed asymmetrical modulation of expectation violation on the cost (invalid vs. neutral cue) and benefit (valid vs. neutral cue) effects: Expectation violation increased the cost effects while did not modulate or decreased (or even reversed) the benefit effects. Furthermore, Experiment 5 provided direct evidence that violation of expectations could enhance the memory encoding of a cue (e.g., color) and this memory advantage could manifest quickly in the early stages of the experiment. The MEC better explains these findings than some traditional models like the spotlight: Expectation violation can both enhance the attentional facilitation of the cue and memory encoding of irrelevant cue information. These findings suggest that expectation violation has a general adaptive function in modulating the attention selectivity.

A meta-analysis of contingent-capture effects

The present meta-analyses investigated the widely used contingent-capture protocol. Contingent-capture theory postulates that only top-down matching stimuli capture attention. Evidence comes from the contingent-capture protocol, in which participants search for a predefined target stimulus preceded by a spatial cue. The cue is typically uninformative of the target's position but either presented at target position (valid condition) or away from the target (invalid condition). The common finding is that seemingly only top-down matching cues capture attention as shown by a selective cueing effect (faster responses in valid than invalid conditions) for cues with a feature similar to the searched-for target only, but not for cues without target-similar feature. The origin of this "contingent-capture effect" is, however, debated. One alternative explanation is that intertrial priming-the priming of attention capture by the cue in a given trial by attending to a feature-similar target in the preceding trial-mediates the contingent-capture effect. Alternatively, the rapid-disengagement account argues that all salient stimuli capture attention initially, but that the disengagement from non-matching cues is rapid. The present meta-analyses shed light on this debate by (a) identifying moderators of the size of reported contingent-capture effects (64 experiments) and (b) analyzing pure (blocked) versus mixed presentation of different targets as well as summarizing results of published intertrial priming studies (12 experiments) in the contingent-capture protocol. We found target-singleton versus non-singleton status and pure versus mixed presentation of different targets to be reliable moderators. Furthermore, results indicated the presence of publication bias. Otherwise, the contingent-capture theory was supported, but we discuss additional factors that must be taken into account for a full account of the results.

Attentional capture by irrelevant emotional distractor faces is contingent on implicit attentional settings

Although expressions of facial emotion hold a special status in attention relative to other complex objects, whether they summon our attention automatically and against our intentions remains a debated issue. Studies supporting the strong view that attentional capture by facial expressions of emotion is entirely automatic reported that a unique (singleton) emotional face distractor interfered with search for a target that was also unique on a different dimension. Participants could therefore search for the odd-one out face to locate the target and attentional capture by irrelevant emotional faces might be contingent on the adoption of an implicit set for singletons. Here, confirming this hypothesis, an irrelevant emotional face captured attention when the target was the unique face with a discrepant orientation, both when this orientation was unpredictable and when it remained constant. By contrast, no such capture was observed when the target could not be found by monitoring displays for a discrepant face and participants had to search for a face with a specific orientation. Our findings show that attentional capture by emotional faces is not purely stimulus driven and thereby resolve the apparent inconsistency that prevails in the literature on the automaticity of attentional capture by emotional faces.

Target enhancement and distractor inhibition affect transitory surround suppression in dual tasks using multiple rapid serial visual presentation streams

Few studies have investigated the interaction between temporal and spatial dimensions on selective attention using dual tasks in the multiple rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) paradigm. A phenomenon that the surround suppression in space changes over time (termed transitory surround suppression, TSS, in the present study) has been observed, suggesting the existence of this time-space interaction. However, it is still unclear whether target enhancement or distractor inhibition modulates TSS. Four behavioural experiments were conducted to investigate the mechanism of TSS by manipulating the temporal lag and spatial distance factors between two targets embedded in six RSVP streams. The TSS effect was replicated in a study that eliminated confounds of perceptual effects and attentional switch (Experiment 1). However, the TSS disappeared when two targets shared the same colour in a between-subjects design (Experiment 2a) and a within-subject design (Experiment 2b), suggesting the impact of target enhancement on TSS. Moreover, the TSS was larger for within-category than for between-category distractors (Experiment 3), indicating the impact of distractor inhibition on TSS. These two influences on TSS under different processing demands of target and distractor processing were further confirmed in a skeletal design (Experiment 4). Overall, combinative effects of target enhancement and distractor suppression contribute to the mechanisms of time-space interaction in selective attention during visual search.

Capturing attention is not that simple: different mechanisms for stimulus-driven and contingent capture

Attentional orienting can be involuntarily directed to task-irrelevant stimuli, but it remains unsolved whether such attentional capture is contingent on top-down settings or could be purely stimulus-driven. We propose that attentional capture depends on the stimulus property because transient and static features are processed differently; thus, they might be modulated differently by top-down controls. To test this hybrid account, we adopted a spatial cuing paradigm in which a noninformative onset or color cue preceded an onset or color target with various stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). Results showed that the onset cue captured attention regardless of target type at short-but not long-SOAs. In contrast, the color cue captured attention at short and long SOAs, but only with a color target. The overall pattern of results corroborates our hypothesis, suggesting that different mechanisms are at work for stimulus-driven capture (by onset) and contingent capture (by color). Stimulus-driven capture elicits reflexive involuntary orienting, and contingent capture elicits voluntary feature-based enhancement.