Dissociable Components of Experience-Driven Attention

Observational learning of threat-related attentional bias

Attentional bias to threat has been almost exclusively examined after participants experienced repeated pairings between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US). This study aimed to determine whether threat-related attentional capture can result from observational learning, when participants acquire knowledge of the aversive qualities of a stimulus without themselves experiencing aversive outcomes. Non-clinical young-adult participants (N = 38) first watched a video of an individual (the demonstrator) performing a Pavlovian conditioning task in which one colour was paired with shock (CS+) and another colour was neutral (CS-). They then carried out visual search for a shape-defined target. Oculomotor measures evidenced an attentional bias toward the CS+ colour, suggesting that threat-related attentional capture can ensue from observational learning. Exploratory analyses also revealed that this effect was positively correlated with empathy for the demonstrator. Our findings extend empirical and theoretical knowledge about threat-driven attention and provide valuable insights to better understand the formation of anxiety disorders.

Trichotomy revisited: A monolithic theory of attentional control

The control of attention was long held to reflect the influence of two competing mechanisms of assigning priority, one goal-directed and the other stimulus-driven. Learning-dependent influences on the control of attention that could not be attributed to either of those two established mechanisms of control gave rise to the concept of selection history and a corresponding third mechanism of attentional control. The trichotomy framework that ensued has come to dominate theories of attentional control over the past decade, replacing the historical dichotomy. In this theoretical review, I readily affirm that distinctions between the influence of goals, salience, and selection history are substantive and meaningful, and that abandoning the dichotomy between goal-directed and stimulus-driven mechanisms of control was appropriate. I do, however, question whether a theoretical trichotomy is the right answer to the problem posed by selection history. If we reframe the influence of goals and selection history as different flavors of memory-dependent modulations of attentional priority and if we characterize the influence of salience as a consequence of insufficient competition from such memory-dependent sources of priority, it is possible to account for a wide range of attention-related phenomena with only one mechanism of control. The monolithic framework for the control of attention that I propose offers several concrete advantages over a trichotomy framework, which I explore here.

Looking away to see: The acquisition of a search habit away from the saccade direction

Growing evidence has shown that attention can be habit-like, unconsciously and persistently directed toward locations that have frequently contained search targets in the past. The attentional preference typically arises when the eye gaze aligns with the attended location. Here we tested whether this spatial alignment is necessary for the acquisition of a search habit. To divert eye movements away from an attended location, we used gaze-contingent eye tracking, restricting the visible portion of the screen to an area opposite to the current gaze. Participants searched for a T target amidst a circular array of L distractors. Unbeknownst to them, the target appeared more frequently in one screen quadrant. Despite fixating on a location diametrically opposite to the visible, attended region, participants acquired probability cuing, producing quicker responses when the target appeared in the high-probability quadrant. They also showed a speed advantage in the diagonal quadrant. The attentional preference for the high-probability quadrant persisted during a testing phase in which the target's location was unbiased, but only when participants continued to search with the restricted view. These results indicate that a search habit can be acquired even when participants are required to look away from the high-probability locations. The finding suggests that the learned search habit is not solely a result of oculomotor learning.

Neural correlates of value-driven spatial orienting

Reward learning has been shown to habitually guide overt spatial attention to specific regions of a scene. However, the neural mechanisms that support this bias are unknown. In the present study, participants learned to orient themselves to a particular quadrant of a scene (a high-value quadrant) to maximize monetary gains. This learning was scene-specific, with the high-value quadrant varying across different scenes. During a subsequent test phase, participants were faster at identifying a target if it appeared in the high-value quadrant (valid), and initial saccades were more likely to be made to the high-value quadrant. fMRI analyses during the test phase revealed learning-dependent priority signals in the caudate tail, superior colliculus, frontal eye field, anterior cingulate cortex, and insula, paralleling findings concerning feature-based, value-driven attention. In addition, ventral regions typically associated with scene selection and spatial information processing, including the hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, and temporo-occipital cortex, were also implicated. Taken together, our findings offer new insights into the neural architecture subserving value-driven attention, both extending our understanding of nodes in the attention network previously implicated in feature-based, value-driven attention and identifying a ventral network of brain regions implicated in reward's influence on scene-dependent spatial orienting.

Primary rewards and aversive outcomes have comparable effects on attentional bias

Attention is biased toward stimuli previously associated with reward. The same is true for aversive conditioning; stimuli previously associated with an aversive outcome also bias attention, suggesting that motivational salience guides attention. Most research that supports this conclusion has manipulated monetary gain-a secondary reinforcer-for reward learning, and electric shocks-a primary punisher-for aversive conditioning, making it difficult to directly compare their influence on attention. Therefore, in the present study, we matched for reinforcer dimensions by using primary taste as reinforcers/punishers and assessed their influence on attention. In a training phase, participants learned to associate three colors with sweet juice (reward), salt water (aversive), and no outcome (neutral), respectively. The two primary reinforcers were equated for valence based on choices made in a prior decision-making task. In a later test phase, these three colors were used for targets and distractors in a task in which participants oriented to a shape-defined target. An attentional bias in favor of the aversively conditioned and reward-associated colors was evident when comparing to the neutral color. Importantly, a direct comparison of rewarded and aversive stimuli revealed no significant differences. These results suggest that when matched for reinforcer dimensions and valence, reward and aversive outcomes bias attention in a similar manner and their effects are comparable, providing further evidence in support of the motivational salience account of learning-dependent attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Combined influence of valence and statistical learning on the control of attention II: Evidence from within-domain additivity

Attention is biased in favor of stimuli that signal either threat or reward; this experience-dependent attentional bias develops via associative learning and persists into extinction. Physically salient yet task-irrelevant stimuli are also prioritized by the attention system, but the attentional priority of a physically salient distractor can be suppressed when it appears in a location in which it has been frequently encountered in the past. Similar effects of statistical learning on distractor suppression have been observed for distractors appearing in a predictable color. A pair of recent studies demonstrate that statistically learned distractor suppression and valence-based attentional biases combine additively, suggesting independent influences of learning on attentional priority. One limitation of these prior studies, however, is that the effects of statistical learning were defined with respect to spatial attention and the effects of associative learning with respect to feature-based attention. A strong version of the independence account would predict additive influences on attention even when both sources of priority are represented within a single domain of attentional control, which we tested in the present study. The attentional priority of a distractor was elevated when its color was previously associated with electric shock and reduced when its shape was frequently encountered as a distractor in a prior training phase, with these two influences on priority combining additively. Our findings provide strong evidence for the idea that statistical learning and valance-based associative learning exert independent influences on the control of attention, which has implications for contemporary theories of selection history.

Top-down knowledge surpasses selection history in influencing attentional guidance

Visual attention is influenced by the characteristics of the stimuli (bottom-up), their task relevance (top-down), and prior experience (e.g., selection history and learning). However, it is largely unclear how learning and selection history interact with top-down attentional guidance. We combined trial-and-error learning with a spatial cueing protocol to test whether previously learned target-defining features continued to capture attention if participants were instructed to search for a new target feature (Experiment 1) or had to learn a new target feature (Experiment 2). It turned out that the previously learned feature quickly stopped capturing attention when the target feature changed (Experiment 1; even before participants learned the new target-defining feature, in Experiment 2). Finally, in Experiment 3, in which participants learned to search for targets defined by two redundant features (color and orientation), we found possible reasons for the dominance of the instructed feature over learning. Participants reported using only the target color for their search. Consequently, only cues with a target color captured attention. The unused target orientation only captured attention in participants aware of both target-defining features (13 out of 23) and only if the orientation was presented in the target color. We conclude that knowledge of target-defining features and their use as search criterion is critical for attentional guidance, while previously learned target features either influence attentional guidance only contingent on such deliberately selected top-down based attentional control settings or may influence visual search but not attentional guidance.

On the Relationship between Value- and Threat-Driven Attentional Capture and Approach-Avoidance Biases

Reward learning and aversive conditioning have consequences for attentional selection, such that stimuli that come to signal reward and threat bias attention regardless of their valence. Appetitive and aversive stimuli have distinctive influences on response selection, such that they activate an approach and an avoidance response, respectively. However, whether the involuntary influence of reward- and threat-history-laden stimuli extends to the manner in which a response is directed remains unclear. Using a feedback-joystick task and a manikin task, which are common paradigms for examining valence-action bias, we demonstrate that reward- and threat-signalling stimuli do not modulate response selection. Stimuli that came to signal reward and threat via training biased attention and invigorated action in general, but they did not facilitate an approach and avoidance response, respectively. We conclude that attention can be biased towards a stimulus as a function of its prior association with reward or aversive outcomes without necessarily influencing approach vs. avoidance tendencies, such that the mechanisms underlying the involuntary control of attention and behaviour evoked by valent stimuli can be decoupled.

The persistence of value-driven attention capture is task-dependent

Visual features previously associated with reward can capture attention even when task-irrelevant, a phenomenon known as value-driven attention capture (VDAC). VDAC persists without reinforcement, unlike other forms of learning, where removing reinforcement typically leads to extinction. In five experiments, factors common to many studies were manipulated to examine their impact on VDAC and its extinction. All experiments included learning and test phases. During learning, participants completed a visual search task during which one of two target colors was associated with a reward, and the other with no reward. During test, 1 week later, participants completed another visual search task in which the reward association was not reinforced. When a rewarded feature remained task-relevant (Experiment 1), VDAC was observed. When the rewarded feature was made task-irrelevant (Experiments 2-5) there was no evidence of a VDAC effect, except when the target feature was physically salient and there was a reduction in the frequency of exposure to the reward-associated feature (Experiment 5). We failed to find evidence of VDAC in Experiments 2-4, suggesting that VDAC may depend on the demands of the task resulting in vulnerability to VDAC. When VDAC was observed, extinction was also observed. This indicates that VDAC is subject to extinction as would be expected from an effect driven by reinforcement learning.

Reward learning and statistical learning independently influence attentional priority of salient distractors in visual search

Existing research demonstrates different ways in which attentional prioritization of salient nontarget stimuli is shaped by prior experience: Reward learning renders signals of high-value outcomes more likely to capture attention than signals of low-value outcomes, whereas statistical learning can produce attentional suppression of the location in which salient distractor items are likely to appear. The current study combined manipulations of the value and location associated with salient distractors in visual search to investigate whether these different effects of selection history operate independently or interact to determine overall attentional prioritization of salient distractors. In Experiment 1, high-value and low-value distractors most frequently appeared in the same location; in Experiment 2, high-value and low-value distractors typically appeared in distinct locations. In both experiments, effects of distractor value and location were additive, suggesting that attention-promoting effects of value and attention-suppressing effects of statistical location-learning independently modulate overall attentional priority. Our findings are consistent with a view that sees attention as mediated by a common priority map that receives and integrates separate signals relating to physical salience and value, with signal suppression based on statistical learning determined by physical salience, but not incentive salience.

The influence of reward history on goal-directed visual search

The attentional priority of a stimulus is influenced by both its relationship to task goals and reward history. While experiments probing goal-directed visual search typically dictate which stimuli should receive attentional priority by virtue of highly constrained task demands, individuals in real-world scenarios choose what to search for. In such complex and dynamic environments, it is unclear how reward history might influence the strategic control of attention. In the present study, participants completed a modified version of the Adaptive Choice Visual Search (ACVS) task integrated with the value-driven attentional capture design. In a training phase, participants learned to associate one of two possible target colors with monetary reward. In a subsequent test phase, they completed the ACVS task in which a target in both a previously rewarded and unrewarded color was present on each trial and participants could choose how to search. Our results reveal that participants were biased to voluntarily search through the previously reward-associated color regardless of whether the distribution of stimuli made it optimal to do so, which came at a cost in performance when searching through the previously rewarded color was a suboptimal strategy. In the absence of prior reward training, in contrast, search strategy was inconsistent with respect to color. Our findings provide evidence that reward history biases voluntary search processes.

Value-Biased Competition in the Auditory System of the Brain

Attentional capture by previously reward-associated stimuli has predominantly been measured in the visual domain. Recently, behavioral studies of value-driven attention have demonstrated involuntary attentional capture by previously reward-associated sounds, emulating behavioral findings within the visual domain and suggesting a common mechanism of attentional capture by value across sensory modalities. However, the neural correlates of the modulatory role of learned value on the processing of auditory information has not been examined. Here, we conducted a neuroimaging study on human participants using a previously established behavioral paradigm that measures value-driven attention in an auditory target identification task. We replicate behavioral findings of both voluntary prioritization and involuntary attentional capture by previously reward-associated sounds. When task-relevant, the selective processing of high-value sounds is supported by reduced activation in the dorsal attention network of the visual system (FEF, intraparietal sulcus, right middle frontal gyrus), implicating cross-modal processes of biased competition. When task-irrelevant, in contrast, high-value sounds evoke elevated activation in posterior parietal cortex and are represented with greater fidelity in the auditory cortex. Our findings reveal two distinct mechanisms of prioritizing reward-related auditory signals, with voluntary and involuntary modes of orienting that are differently manifested in biased competition.

Motivational Salience Guides Attention to Valuable and Threatening Stimuli: Evidence from Behavior and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Rewarding and aversive outcomes have opposing effects on behavior, facilitating approach and avoidance, although we need to accurately anticipate each type of outcome to behave effectively. Attention is biased toward stimuli that have been learned to predict either type of outcome, and it remains an open question whether such orienting is driven by separate systems for value- and threat-based orienting or whether there exists a common underlying mechanism of attentional control driven by motivational salience. Here, we provide a direct comparison of the neural correlates of value- and threat-based attentional capture after associative learning. Across multiple measures of behavior and brain activation, our findings overwhelmingly support a motivational salience account of the control of attention. We conclude that there exists a core mechanism of experience-dependent attentional control driven by motivational salience and that prior characterizations of attention as being value driven or supporting threat monitoring need to be revisited.

The past, present, and future of selection history

The last ten years of attention research have witnessed a revolution, replacing a theoretical dichotomy (top-down vs. bottom-up control) with a trichotomy (biased by current goals, physical salience, and selection history). This third new mechanism of attentional control, selection history, is multifaceted. Some aspects of selection history must be learned over time whereas others reflect much more transient influences. A variety of different learning experiences can shape the attention system, including reward, aversive outcomes, past experience searching for a target, target‒non-target relations, and more. In this review, we provide an overview of the historical forces that led to the proposal of selection history as a distinct mechanism of attentional control. We then propose a formal definition of selection history, with concrete criteria, and identify different components of experience-driven attention that fit within this definition. The bulk of the review is devoted to exploring how these different components relate to one another. We conclude by proposing an integrative account of selection history centered on underlying themes that emerge from our review.

How Does Threat Modulate the Motivational Effects of Reward on Attention?

Studies on attentional bias have overwhelmingly focused on the priority of different stimuli and have rarely manipulated the state of the observer. Recently, the threat of unpredictable shock has been utilized to experimentally induce anxiety and investigate how negative arousal modulates attentional control. Experimentally induced anxiety has been shown to reduce the attentional priority afforded to reward-related stimuli while enhancing the efficiency of goal-directed attentional control. It is unclear which of these two influences might dominate when attending to reward-related stimuli is consistent with task goals and by extension what the scope of the modulatory influence of threat on attention is. In contrast to paradigms in the visual domain, a novel auditory identification task has demonstrated a robust influence of target-value associations on selective attention. In the present study, we examined how the threat of shock modulates the influence of learned value on voluntary attention. In both threat and no-threat conditions, we replicate prior findings of voluntary prioritization of reward-associated sounds. However, unlike in studies measuring involuntary attentional capture, threat did not modulate the influence of reward on attention. Our findings highlight important limitations to when and how threat modulates the control of attention, contextualizing prior findings.

Testing reward-cue attentional salience: Attainment and dynamic changes

A great wealth of studies has investigated the capacity of motivationally relevant stimuli to bias attention, suggesting that reward predicting cues are prioritized even when reward is no longer delivered and when attending to such stimuli is detrimental to reward achievement. Despite multiple procedures have been adopted to unveil the mechanisms whereby reward cues gain attentional salience, some open questions remain. Indeed, mechanisms different from motivation can be responsible for the capture of attention triggered by the reward cue. In addition, we note that at present only a few studies have sought to address whether the cue attractiveness dynamically follows changes in the associated reward value. Investigating how and to what extent the salience of the reward cue is updated when motivation changes, could help shedding light on how reward‐cues attain and maintain their capacity to attract attention, and therefore on apparent irrational attentive behaviors.

Gotcha: Working memory prioritization from automatic attentional biases

Attention is an important resource for prioritizing information in working memory (WM), and it can be deployed both strategically and automatically. Most research investigating the relationship between WM and attention has focused on strategic efforts to deploy attentional resources toward remembering relevant information. However, such voluntary attentional control represents a mere subset of the attentional processes that select information to be encoded and maintained in WM (Theeuwes, Journal of Cognition, 1[1]: 29, 1-15, 2018). Here, we discuss three ways in which information becomes prioritized automatically in WM-physical salience, statistical learning, and reward learning. This review integrates findings from perception and working memory studies to propose a more sophisticated understanding of the relationship between attention and working memory.

Using aversive conditioning with near-real-time feedback to shape eye movements during naturalistic viewing

Strategically shaping patterns of eye movements through training has manifold promising applications, with the potential to improve the speed and efficiency of visual search, improve the ability of humans to extract information from complex displays, and help correct disordered eye movement patterns. However, training how a person moves their eyes when viewing an image or scene is notoriously difficult, with typical approaches relying on explicit instruction and strategy, which have notable limitations. The present study introduces a novel approach to eye movement training using aversive conditioning with near-real-time feedback. Participants viewed indoor scenes (eight scenes presented over 48 trials) with the goal of remembering those scenes for a later memory test. During viewing, saccades meeting specific amplitude and direction criteria probabilistically triggered an aversive electric shock, which was felt within 50 ms after the eliciting eye movement, allowing for a close temporal coupling between an oculomotor behavior and the feedback intended to shape it. Results demonstrate a bias against performing an initial saccade in the direction paired with shock (Experiment 1) or generally of the amplitude paired with shock (Experiment 2), an effect that operates without apparent awareness of the relationship between shocks and saccades, persists into extinction, and generalizes to the viewing of novel images. The present study serves as a proof of concept concerning the implementation of near-real-time feedback in eye movement training.

Punishment-modulated attentional capture is context specific

Attention prioritizes stimuli previously associated with punishment. Despite the importance of this process for survival and adaptation, the potential generalization of punishment-related attentional biases has been largely ignored in the literature. This study aimed to determine whether stimulus-punishment associations learned in a specific context bias attention in another context (in which the stimulus was never paired with punishment). We examined this issue using an antisaccade task in which participants had to shift their gaze in the opposite direction of a colored square during stimulus-outcome learning. Two contexts and three colors were employed. One color was associated with punishment (i.e., electrical shock) in one context and never paired with punishment in the other context. For a second color, the punishment-context relationship was reversed. A third color never paired with shock in either context (neutral) was included in Experiment 1 but absent in Experiment 2. Participants then performed search for a shape-defined target in an extinction phase (in which no shock was delivered) in which attentional bias for the colors was assessed. Context was manipulated via the background image upon which the stimuli were presented. In each of the two experiments, a bias to selectively orient toward the color that had been associated with punishment in the current context was observed, suggesting that punishment-modulated attentional priority is context specific.

Time to Stop Calling it Attentional "Capture" and Embrace a Mechanistic Understanding of Attentional Priority

In the target article, Luck et al. (2020) argue for progress that has been made in the debate surrounding the factors that determine whether a stimulus captures attention, offering points of agreement in addition to highlighting specific outstanding issues that could contribute to further resolution. This commentary questions the most fundamental assumption on which the debate rests: namely that the computation of attentional priority can culminate in a quantal event in which attention can be said to have been captured. The notion of attention-as-capturable leads to a forced dichotomy with respect to the occurrence of capture that undergirds the arguments forwarded by Luck et al. (2020), a dichotomy predicated on arbitrary lines of demarcation over a continuous and temporally-unfolding mental process distributed over multiple regions of the brain. These arbitrary lines of demarcation serve to perpetuate claims that one type of stimulus either does or does not qualify as capturing attention under particular experiment conditions, on which this entire debate rests. I argue that it is more productive to conceptualize issues surrounding the control of attention in terms of the computation of attentional priority, which naturally links together goal-directed and stimulus-driven influences in a richer and more coherent way.

Previously reward-associated sounds interfere with goal-directed auditory processing

Previously reward-associated stimuli have consistently been shown to involuntarily capture attention in the visual domain. Although previously reward-associated but currently task-irrelevant sounds have also been shown to interfere with visual processing, it remains unclear whether such stimuli can interfere with the processing of task-relevant auditory information. To address this question, we modified a dichotic listening task to measure interference from task-irrelevant but previously reward-associated sounds. In a training phase, participants were simultaneously presented with a spoken letter and number in different auditory streams and learned to associate the correct identification of each of three letters with high, low, and no monetary reward, respectively. In a subsequent test phase, participants were again presented with the same auditory stimuli but were instead instructed to report the number while ignoring spoken letters. In both the training and test phases, response time measures demonstrated that attention was biased in favour of the auditory stimulus associated with high value. Our findings demonstrate that attention can be biased towards learned reward cues in the auditory domain, interfering with goal-directed auditory processing.

Combined influence of valence and statistical learning on the control of attention: Evidence for independent sources of bias

Selection history exerts a powerful influence on the control of attention. Stimuli signalling reward and punishment capture attention even when physically non-salient and task-irrelevant. Repeated presentation of a salient distractor at a particular location generates learned suppression, resulting in reduced attentional processing at that location. A debate in the field concerns whether different components of selection history influence attention via a common underlying mechanism of learning-dependent control or via distinct, independent mechanisms. We probed this question with a particular focus on reward/punishment history and learned suppression. Participants were trained to suppress a particular location (high probability distractor location) and associate colours with reward or no outcome (no-reward). In a subsequent task, reward and no-reward distractors appeared in all locations equally often. In a separate experiment, we replaced reward with electric shocks. Reward and shock distractors captured attention more strongly than no-reward and no-shock distractors irrespective of their location. Distractors appearing in the high probability location showed reduced capture irrespective of their type. The results imply that reward and punishment learning and learned suppression have independent influences on the attentional system.

Reward history impacts attentional orienting and inhibitory control on untrained tasks

It has been robustly shown that stimuli with reward history receive attentional priority. However, the majority of this research tests reward history effects on attentional bias using similar tasks for both the reward learning phase and the unrewarded testing phase, which limits our understanding of how the effects of reward history generalize beyond the trained tasks and mental sets. Across two new experiments, the current study addresses these issues by first associating reward with a stimulus in a visual search paradigm, and then testing value-driven effects of that stimulus in untrained and unrewarded tasks, including a cueing paradigm, a go/no-go task, and a delay discounting task. Results of Experiment 1 demonstrate that history of reward association in a visual search task generalizes to value-driven attentional bias in a different attention paradigm (i.e., cueing), indicating these effects are indeed attributable to imbued value that can transfer to other tasks beyond that in which the reward was trained. The results of Experiment 2 demonstrate that in addition to eliciting attentional orienting on untrained tasks, reward history can lead to better inhibitory control in the go/no-go task. We find no evidence for reward history effects in the delay discounting task. Together, these experiments demonstrate that when the reward association task is in the attention domain, reward history modulates attentional priority, and this effect generalizes to untrained and unrewarded tasks that utilize both spatial and nonspatial attention.

Incentive value and spatial certainty combine additively to determine visual priorities

How does the brain combine information predictive of the value of a visually guided task (incentive value) with information predictive of where task-relevant stimuli may occur (spatial certainty)? Human behavioural evidence indicates that these two predictions may be combined additively to bias visual selection (Additive Hypothesis), whereas neuroeconomic studies posit that they may be multiplicatively combined (Expected Value Hypothesis). We sought to adjudicate between these two alternatives. Participants viewed two coloured placeholders that specified the potential value of correctly identifying an imminent letter target if it appeared in that placeholder. Then, prior to the target’s presentation, an endogenous spatial cue was presented indicating the target’s more likely location. Spatial cues were parametrically manipulated with regard to the information gained (in bits). Across two experiments, performance was better for targets appearing in high versus low value placeholders and better when targets appeared in validly cued locations. Interestingly, as shown with a Bayesian model selection approach, these effects did not interact, clearly supporting the Additive Hypothesis. Even when conditions were adjusted to increase the optimality of a multiplicative operation, support for it remained. These findings refute recent theories that expected value computations are the singular mechanism driving the deployment of endogenous spatial attention. Instead, incentive value and spatial certainty seem to act independently to influence visual selection.

Selection history is relative

Visual attention can be tuned to specific features to aid in visual search. The way in which these search strategies are established and maintained is flexible, reflecting goal-directed attentional control, but can exert a persistent effect on selection that remains even when these strategies are no longer advantageous, reflecting an attentional bias driven by selection history. Apart from feature-specific search, recent studies have shown that attention can be tuned to target-nontarget relationships. Here we tested whether a relational search strategy continues to bias attention in a subsequent task, where the relationally better color and former target color both serve as distractors (Experiment 1) or as potential targets (Experiment 2). We demonstrate that a relational bias can persist in a subsequent task in which color serves as a task-irrelevant feature, both impairing and facilitating visual search performance. Our findings extend our understanding of the relational account of attentional control and the nature of selection history effects on attention.

Visual Search: How Do We Find What We Are Looking For?

In visual search tasks, observers look for targets among distractors. In the lab, this often takes the form of multiple searches for a simple shape that may or may not be present among other items scattered at random on a computer screen (e.g., Find a red T among other letters that are either black or red.). In the real world, observers may search for multiple classes of target in complex scenes that occur only once (e.g., As I emerge from the subway, can I find lunch, my friend, and a street sign in the scene before me?). This article reviews work on how search is guided intelligently. I ask how serial and parallel processes collaborate in visual search, describe the distinction between search templates in working memory and target templates in long-term memory, and consider how searches are terminated.

How does the attention system learn from aversive outcomes?

Learning about aversive outcomes plays a role in the guidance of attention. Classical conditioning generates a bias to predictors of aversive outcomes, whereas instrumental learning potentiates a negatively reinforced avoidance behavior, which can be difficult to dissociate in the case of attention to aversively conditioned stimuli. The present study examined the relative contribution from these two learning processes to the control of attention. Participants were first provided an opportunity to avoid an electric shock by generating a saccade in the direction opposite one of two stimuli. In contradiction to the practiced avoidance behavior, such training resulted in a bias to orient toward the shock-associated stimulus, indicative of a more dominant role of classical conditioning in the control of attention. The findings are in parallel with the influence of positive reinforcement on attention, suggesting that the attention system may be guided by motivational relevance rather than a particular emotional valence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Relating value-driven attention to psychopathology

Reward-associated objects receive preferential attention, reflecting a bias in information processing that develops automatically following associative learning. Mounting evidence suggests that such value-driven attention operates abnormally in certain psychopathologies, with attentional biases for reward-associated objects being either exaggerated or blunted compared to healthy controls. Here, I review the evidence linking value-driven attention to psychopathology, including drug addiction, depression, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), compulsivity, and impulsive and risky decision-making. I conclude by offering an integrative framework for conceptualizing the link between value-driven attention and psychopathology, along with suggestions for future research into this burgeoning area of investigation, including research on object attachment.

Learning to avoid looking: Competing influences of reward on overt attentional selection

Pairing a stimulus with large reward increases the likelihood that it will capture attention and eye-gaze, even when such capture has negative consequences. This suggests that a stimulus’s signalling relationship with reward (the co-occurrence of that stimulus and reward) has a powerful influence on attentional selection. In the present study, we demonstrate that a stimulus’s response relationship with reward (the reward-related consequences of attending to that stimulus) can also exert an independent, competing influence on selection. Participants completed a visual search task in which they made a saccade to a target shape to earn reward. The colour of a distractor signalled the magnitude of reward available on each trial. For one group of participants, there was a negative response relationship between making a saccade to the distractor and reward delivery: looking at the distractor caused the reward to be cancelled. For a second group, there was no negative response relationship, but an equivalent distractor–reward signalling relationship was maintained via a yoking procedure. Participants from both groups were more likely to have their gaze captured by the distractor that signalled high reward versus low reward, demonstrating an influence of the signalling relationship on attention. However, participants who experienced a negative response relationship showed a reduced influence of signal value on capture, and specifically less capture by the high-reward distractor. These findings demonstrate that reward can have a multifaceted influence on attentional selection through different, learned stimulus-reward relationships, and thus that the relationship between reward and attention is more complex than previously thought.

Specificity and persistence of statistical learning in distractor suppression

Statistical regularities in distractor location trigger suppression of high-probability distractor locations during visual search. The degree to which such suppression reflects generalizable, persistent changes in a spatial priority map has not been examined. We demonstrate that suppression of high-probability distractor locations persists after location probabilities are equalized and likely reflects a genuine reshaping of the priority map rather than more transient effects of selection history. Statistically learned suppression generalizes across contexts within a task during learning but does not generalize between task paradigms using unrelated stimuli in identical spatial locations. These findings suggest that stimulus features do play a role in learned spatial suppression, potentially gating the weights applied to a spatial priority map. However, the binding of location to context during learning is not automatic, in contrast to the previously reported interaction of location-based statistical learning and stimulus features. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Selection History-Driven Signal Suppression

The control of attention is influenced by current goals, physical salience, and selection history. Under certain conditions, physically salient stimuli can be strategically suppressed below baseline levels, facilitating visual search for a target. It is unclear whether such signal suppression is a broad mechanism of selective information processing that extends to other sources of attentional priority evoked by task-irrelevant stimuli, or whether it is particular to physically salient perceptual signals. Using eye movements, in the present study we highlight a case where a former-target-color distractor facilitates search for a target on a large percentage of trials. Our findings provide evidence that the principle of signal suppression extends to other sources of attentional priority beyond physical salience, and that selection history can be leveraged to strategically guide attention away from a stimulus.

Visual Attention: The Multiple Ways in which History Shapes Selection

The identity of the next thing you will attend to is under the control of several factors. One of these is your prior attentional history. New research shows that this 'selection history' comes in more than one distinct form.

Reward learning biases the direction of saccades

The role of associative reward learning in guiding feature-based attention and spatial attention is well established. However, no studies have looked at the extent to which reward learning can modulate the direction of saccades during visual search. Here, we introduced a novel reward learning paradigm to examine whether reward-associated directions of eye movements can modulate performance in different visual search tasks. Participants had to fixate a peripheral target before fixating one of four disks that subsequently appeared in each cardinal position. This was followed by reward feedback contingent upon the direction chosen, where one direction consistently yielded a high reward. Thus, reward was tied to the direction of saccades rather than the absolute location of the stimulus fixated. Participants selected the target in the high-value direction on the majority of trials, demonstrating robust learning of the task contingencies. In an untimed visual foraging task that followed, which was performed in extinction, initial saccades were reliably biased in the previously rewarded-associated direction. In a second experiment, following the same training procedure, eye movements in the previously high-value direction were facilitated in a saccade-to-target task. Our findings suggest that rewarding directional eye movements biases oculomotor search patterns in a manner that is robust to extinction and generalizes across stimuli and task.

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.

Value-driven attentional capture enhances distractor representations in early visual cortex

When a behaviorally relevant stimulus has been previously associated with reward, behavioral responses are faster and more accurate compared to equally relevant but less valuable stimuli. Conversely, task-irrelevant stimuli that were previously associated with a high reward can capture attention and distract processing away from relevant stimuli (e.g., seeing a chocolate bar in the pantry when you are looking for a nice, healthy apple). Although increasing the value of task-relevant stimuli systematically up-regulates neural responses in early visual cortex to facilitate information processing, it is not clear whether the value of task-irrelevant distractors influences behavior via competition in early visual cortex or via competition at later stages of decision-making and response selection. Here, we measured functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in human visual cortex while subjects performed a value-based learning task, and we applied a multivariate inverted encoding model (IEM) to assess the fidelity of distractor representations in early visual cortex. We found that the fidelity of neural representations related to task-irrelevant distractors increased when the distractors were previously associated with a high reward. This finding suggests that value-driven attentional capture begins with sensory modulations of distractor representations in early areas of visual cortex.

Neural correlates of attentional capture by stimuli previously associated with social reward

Our attention is strongly influenced by reward learning. Stimuli previously associated with monetary reward have been shown to automatically capture attention in both behavioral and neurophysiological studies. Stimuli previously associated with positive social feedback similarly capture attention; however, it is unknown whether such social facilitation of attention relies on similar or dissociable neural systems. Here, we used the value-driven attentional capture paradigm in an fMRI study to identify the neural correlates of attention to stimuli previously associated with social reward. The results reveal learning-dependent priority signals in the contralateral visual cortex, posterior parietal cortex, and caudate tail, similar to studies using monetary reward. An additional priority signal was consistently evident in the right middle frontal gyrus (MFG). Our findings support the notion of a common neural mechanism for directing attention on the basis of selection history that generalizes across different types of reward.