Hold the future, let the past go: attention prefers the features of future targets

Investigating attentional control sets: Evidence for the compilation of multi-feature control sets

Top-down control over stimulus-driven attentional capture, as postulated by the contingent capture hypothesis, has been a topic of lively scientific debate for a number of years now. According to the latter hypothesis, a stimulus has to match the feature of a top-down established control set in order to be selected automatically. Today, research on the topic of contingent capture has focused mostly on the manipulation of only a single feature separating the target from the distractors (the selection feature). The research presented here examined the compilation of top-down attentional control sets having multiple selection features. We report three experiments in which the feature overlap between the distractor and the top-down sets was manipulated on different perceptual features (e.g., colour, orientation and location). Distractors could match three, two or one of the features of the top-down sets. In line with our hypotheses, the strength of the distractor interference effects decreased linearly as the feature overlap between the distractor and the participants' top-down sets decreased. These results therefore suggest a decline in the efficiency with which distractors involuntarily capture attention as the target-similarity decreases. The data support the idea of multi-feature attentional control sets and are discussed in light of prominent contemporary theories of visual attention.

Three visual working memory representations simultaneously control attention

How many items can we store in visual working memory while simultaneously conducting a visual search? Previous research has proposed that during concurrent visual search, only one visual working memory representation can be activated to directly influence attention. This previous research suggests that other visual working memory representations are "accessory items", which have little direct influence on attention. However, recent findings provided evidence that not one, but two visual working memory representations can capture attention and interfere with concurrent visual search. We successfully replicate these findings, and further test whether the capacity of visual working memory during visual search extends to not two, but three representations that influence attention directly. We find evidence that three visual working memory representations can simultaneously control attention.

Two visual working memory representations simultaneously control attention

It has been proposed that only one visual working memory (VWM) representation can be activated to influence perception directly, whereas other VWM representations are accessory items which have little influence on visual selection. The sole active VWM representation might reflect a fundamental bottleneck in the information processing of human beings. However, the present study showed that each of two VWM representations can capture attention and interfere with concurrent visual search. In addition, each of two VWM representations can interfere with concurrent visual search as much as can a single cued VWM representation. Moreover, when two memory-matching distractors appear in visual search, two VWM representations produce a larger memory-driven capture effect than a single memory-matching distractor. Thus, two VWM representations can simultaneously control attention.

Social comparison modulates reward-driven attentional capture

It is well established that attention can be captured by task irrelevant and non-salient objects associated with value through reward learning. However, it is unknown whether social comparison influences reward-driven attentional capture. The present study created four social contexts to examine whether different social comparisons modulate the reward-driven capture of attention. The results showed that reward-driven attentional capture varied with different social comparison conditions. Most prominently, reward-driven attentional capture is dramatically reduced in the disadvantageous social comparison context, in which an individual is informed that the other participant is earning more monetary reward for performing the same task. These findings suggest that social comparison can affect the reward-driven capture of attention.

Contingent capture of involuntary visual attention interferes with detection of auditory stimuli

The involuntary capture of attention by salient visual stimuli can be influenced by the behavioral goals of an observer. For example, when searching for a target item, irrelevant items that possess the target-defining characteristic capture attention more strongly than items not possessing that feature. Such contingent capture involves a shift of spatial attention toward the item with the target-defining characteristic. It is not clear, however, if the associated decrements in performance for detecting the target item are entirely due to involuntary orienting of spatial attention. To investigate whether contingent capture also involves a non-spatial interference, adult observers were presented with streams of visual and auditory stimuli and were tasked with simultaneously monitoring for targets in each modality. Visual and auditory targets could be preceded by a lateralized visual distractor that either did, or did not, possess the target-defining feature (a specific color). In agreement with the contingent capture hypothesis, target-colored distractors interfered with visual detection performance (response time and accuracy) more than distractors that did not possess the target color. Importantly, the same pattern of results was obtained for the auditory task: visual target-colored distractors interfered with sound detection. The decrement in auditory performance following a target-colored distractor suggests that contingent capture involves a source of processing interference in addition to that caused by a spatial shift of attention. Specifically, we argue that distractors possessing the target-defining characteristic enter a capacity-limited, serial stage of neural processing, which delays detection of subsequently presented stimuli regardless of the sensory modality.