Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention

Is processing superiority a universal trait for all threats? Divergent impacts of fearful, angry, and disgusted faces on attentional capture

Fearful, angry, and disgusted facial expressions are evolutionarily salient and convey different types of threat signals. However, it remains unclear whether these three expressions impact sensory perception and attention in the same way. The present ERP study investigated the temporal dynamics underlying the processing of different types of threatening faces and the impact of attentional resources employed during a perceptual load task. Participants were asked to judge the length of bars superimposed over faces presented in the center of the screen. A mass univariate statistical approach was used to analyze the EEG data. Behaviorally, task accuracy was significantly reduced following exposure to fearful faces relative to neutral distractors, independent of perceptual load. The ERP results revealed that the P1 amplitude over the right hemisphere was found to be enhanced for fearful relative to disgusted faces, reflecting the rapid and coarse detection of fearful cues. The N170 responses elicited by fearful, angry, and disgusted faces were larger than those elicited by neutral faces, suggesting the largely automatic and preferential processing of threats. Furthermore, the early posterior negativity (EPN) component yielded increased responses to fearful and angry faces, indicating prioritized attention to stimuli representing acute threats. Additionally, perceptual load exerted a pronounced influence on the EPN and late positive potential (LPP), with larger responses observed in the low perceptual load condition, indicating goal-directed cognitive processing. Overall, the early sensory processing of fearful, angry, and disgusted faces is characterized by differential sensitivity in capturing attention automatically, despite the importance of these facial signals for survival. Fearful faces produce a strong interference effect and are processed with higher priority than angry and disgusted ones.

EXPRESS: High Bladder Pressure Reduces the Ability to Filter Out Interference From Distractors in Low Perceptual Load Condition

According to the load theory of attention, an active cognitive control mechanism is needed to ensure that behavior is controlled by target-relevant information when distractors are also perceived. Although the active cognitive control mechanism consists of working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibition components, predictions regarding the load effects of this mechanism were derived mostly from studies on working memory. We aimed to test whether these predictions are also valid for an inhibition component. The inhibitory load was manipulated physiologically by creating different bladder pressure and its effects on distractor interference were examined under low and high perceptual load conditions. Results indicated that the availability of inhibitory control resources was important for decreasing the interference of distractors in the low perceptual load condition and that the high perceptual load reduced the effects of distractors independently from the availability of inhibitory resources. Results were consistent with the predictions of load theory, and to the best of our knowledge, the study provided the first piece of evidence in terms of the load effect of inhibition component on distractor interference.

Attentional Capture From Inside vs. Outside the Attentional Focus

In this study, we jointly reported in an empirical and a theoretical way, for the first time, two main theories: Lavie's perceptual load theory and Gaspelin et al.'s attentional dwelling hypothesis. These theories explain in different ways the modulation of the perceptual load/task difficulty over attentional capture by irrelevant distractors and lead to the observation of the opposite results with similar manipulations. We hypothesized that these opposite results may critically depend on the distractor type used by the two experimental procedures (i.e., distractors inside vs. outside the attentional focus, which could be, respectively, considered as potentially relevant vs. completely irrelevant to the main task). Across a series of experiments, we compared both theories within the same paradigm by manipulating both the perceptual load/task difficulty and the distractor type. The results were strongly consistent, suggesting that the influence of task demands on attentional capture varies as a function of the distractor type: while the interference from (relevant) distractors presented inside the attentional focus was consistently higher for high vs. low load conditions, there was no modulation by (irrelevant) distractors presented outside the attentional focus. Moreover, we critically analyzed the theoretical conceptualization of interference using both theories, disentangling important outcomes for the dwelling hypothesis. Our results provide specific insights into new aspects of attentional capture, which can critically redefine these two predominant theories.

Forgetting under difficult conditions: Item-method directed forgetting under perceptual processing constraints

Intentional forgetting of unwanted items is effortful, yet directed forgetting seems to improve when a secondary task is performed. According to the cognitive load hypothesis of directed forgetting, allocating attentional resources to another task improves forgetting by restricting unwanted encoding of to-be-forgotten (TBF) items. Alternatively, it might be that anything that makes studying more difficult will encourage greater effort to perform the task well and therefore lead to improved intentional forgetting. To assess these proposals we imposed data-processing limitations on study words in an item-method directed forgetting paradigm. Across six experiments, the perceptual quality of study words was manipulated by varying: (1) the duration of study word presentation (Experiments 1-4); (2) the contrast of the displayed word against its visual background (Experiment 5); or (3) the amount of visual background noise on which the word was presented (Experiment 6). In Experiments 4-6, a lexical decision task corroborated the difficulty of study word processing. Despite evidence that relatively low visual contrast and relatively high visual background noise, in particular, create challenging conditions, we found no evidence that perceptual quality impacts the magnitude of the directed forgetting effect. This work suggests that data limitations have no discernible effect on forgetting and corroborate that only attentional resource limitations improve directed forgetting.

A critical review of the cognitive and perceptual factors influencing attentional scaling and visual processing

An important mechanism used to selectively process relevant information in the environment is spatial attention. One fundamental way in which spatial attention is deployed is attentional scaling - the process of focusing attentional resources either narrowly or broadly across the visual field. Although early empirical work suggested that narrowing attention improves all aspects of visual processing, recent studies have demonstrated that narrowing attention can also have no effect or even a detrimental impact when it comes to vision that is thought to be mediated via the magnocellular pathway of the visual system. Here, for the first time, we synthesize empirical evidence measuring the behavioral effects of attentional scaling on tasks gauging the contribution of the major neural pathways of the visual system, with the purpose of determining the potential factors driving these contradictory empirical findings. This analysis revealed that attentional scaling could be best understood by considering the unique methodologies used in the research literature to date. The implications of this analysis for theoretical frameworks of attentional scaling are discussed, and methodological improvements for future research are proposed.

Attending to the Chemical Senses

Theorizing around the topic of attention and its role in human information processing largely emerged out of research on the so-called spatial senses: vision, audition, and to a lesser extent, touch. Thus far, the chemical senses have received far less research interest (or should that be attention) from those experimental psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists interested in the topic. Nevertheless, this review highlights the key role that attentional selection also plays in chemosensory information processing and awareness. Indeed, many of the same theoretical approaches/experimental paradigms that were originally developed in the context of the spatial senses, can be (and in some cases already have been) extended to provide a useful framework for thinking about the perception of taste/flavour. Furthermore, a number of those creative individuals interested in modifying the perception of taste/flavour by manipulating product-extrinsic cues (such as, for example, music in the case of sonic seasoning) are increasingly looking to attentional accounts in order to help explain the empirical phenomena that they are starting to uncover. However, separate from its role in explaining sonic seasoning, gaining a better understanding of the role of attentional distraction in modulating our eating/drinking behaviours really ought to be a topic of growing societal concern. This is because distracted diners (e.g., those who eat while watching TV, fiddling with a mobile device or smartphone, or even while driving) consume significantly more than those who mindfully pay attention to the sensations associated with eating and drinking.

Processing overlap-dependent distractor dilution rather than perceptual target load determines attentional selectivity

The perceptual load theory of attentional selection argues that the degree to which distractors interfere with target processing is determined by the "perceptual load" (or discrimination difficulty) of target processing: when perceptual load is low, distractors interfere to a greater extent than when it is high. A well-known exception is load-independent interference effects from face distractors during processing of name targets. This finding was reconciled with load theory by proposing distinct processing resources for faces versus names. In the present study, we revisit this effect to test (a) whether increasing the processing overlap (perceptual, lexical, conceptual) between potential targets and distractors would reinstate the classic load effect, and (b) whether this data pattern could be better explained by load theory or by a rival account that argues that distractor dilution rather than target load determines the degree of distractor interference. Over four experiments, we first replicate the original finding and then show that load effects grow with increasing processing overlap between potential targets and distractors. However, by adding dilution conditions, we also show that these processing overlap dependent modulations of distractor interference can be explained by the distractor dilution perspective but not by perceptual load theory. Thus, our findings support a processing overlap dilution account of attentional selection.

The cognitive loci of the display and task-relevant set size effects on distractor interference: Evidence from a dual-task paradigm

The congruency effect of a task-irrelevant distractor has been found to be modulated by task-relevant set size and display set size. The present study used a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm to examine the cognitive loci of the display set size effect (dilution effect) and the task-relevant set size effect (perceptual load effect) on distractor interference. A tone discrimination task (Task 1), in which a response was made to the pitch of the target tone, was followed by a letter discrimination task (Task 2) in which different types of visual target display were used. In Experiment 1, in which display set size was manipulated to examine the nature of the display set size effect on distractor interference in Task 2, the modulation of the congruency effect by display set size was observed at both short and long stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs), indicating that the display set size effect occurred after the target was selected for processing in the focused attention stage. In Experiment 2, in which task-relevant set size was manipulated to examine the nature of the task-relevant set size effect on distractor interference in Task 2, the effects of task-relevant set size increased with SOA, suggesting that the target selection efficiency in the preattentive stage was impaired with increasing task-relevant set size. These results suggest that display set size and task-relevant set size modulate distractor processing in different ways.

Opposing effects of memory-driven and stimulus-driven attention on distractor perception

It is well known that a match between working memory contents and a visual stimulus creates attentional bias toward the memory-matching stimulus. The present study investigated whether this memory-driven attentional bias exerts similar effects with conventional, spatial attention driven by a cue stimulus. Specifically, we examined how the effect of a distracting, task-irrelevant stimulus is modulated when attention was oriented toward the distractor in memory- and stimulus-driven manners. The results showed that significant interference by a distractor decreased when attention was allocated to the distractor in a memory-driven manner, whereas the distracter captured attention in a stimulus-driven manner exerted increased interference. By contrast, memory-driven attention brought an unattended stimulus into attentional focus, while stimulus-driven attention failed to do so. These results provide evidence that the mechanisms underlying working memory-driven and stimulus-driven attention are separable, pointing to the dynamic and flexible relationship between working memory and attention.

Attention Moderates the Relationship Between Primary Psychopathy and Affective Empathy in Undergraduate Students

Psychopathy is personality traits, which is consisted of primary psychopathy characterized by affective and interpersonal problems and secondary psychopathy characterized by behavioral problems. Prior researchers have suggested that people with psychopathy have peculiar attention, which prevents them from detecting information peripheral to their concern, and we hypothesized that this explains their low empathy. Based on these reasoning, the present study assessed whether attention moderates the relationship between psychopathy and affective empathy. Eighty-five undergraduates (40 men and 45 women; mean age = 19.8 years; SD = 1.6) completed the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, and a perceptual load task. Hierarchical regression showed that a significant moderation effect was found: primary psychopathy was negatively associated with affective empathy, among those with reduced interference from task-irrelevant stimuli under a medium level of perceptual load. Future study should need to replicate this finding with clinical population.

Effects of Motion in the Far Peripheral Visual Field on Cognitive Test Performance and Cognitive Load

Cognitive load theory posits that limited attention is in actuality a limitation in working memory resources. The load theory of selective attention and cognitive control sees the interplay between attention and awareness as separate modifying functions that act on working memory. Reconciling the theoretical differences in these two theories has important implications for learning. Thirty-nine adult participants performed a cognitively demanding test, with and without movement in the far peripheral field. Although the results for movement effects on cognitive load in this experiment were not statistically significant, men spent less time on the cognitive test in the peripheral movement condition than in the conditions without peripheral movement. No such difference was found for women. The implications of these results and recommendations for future research that extends the present study are presented.

Modeling the Effects of Perceptual Load: Saliency, Competitive Interactions, and Top-Down Biases

A computational model of visual selective attention has been implemented to account for experimental findings on the Perceptual Load Theory (PLT) of attention. The model was designed based on existing neurophysiological findings on attentional processes with the objective to offer an explicit and biologically plausible formulation of PLT. Simulation results verified that the proposed model is capable of capturing the basic pattern of results that support the PLT as well as findings that are considered contradictory to the theory. Importantly, the model is able to reproduce the behavioral results from a dilution experiment, providing thus a way to reconcile PLT with the competing Dilution account. Overall, the model presents a novel account for explaining PLT effects on the basis of the low-level competitive interactions among neurons that represent visual input and the top-down signals that modulate neural activity. The implications of the model concerning the debate on the locus of selective attention as well as the origins of distractor interference in visual displays of varying load are discussed.

Nonspecific competition underlies transient attention

Cueing a target by abrupt visual stimuli enhances its perception in a rapid but short-lived fashion, an effect known as transient attention. Our recent study showed that when targets are cued at a constant, central location, the emergence of the transient performance pattern was dependent on the presence of competing distractors, whereas targets presented in isolation were enhanced in a sustained manner (Wilschut et al., PLoS ONE, 6:e27661, 2011). The current study examined in more detail whether the transience depends on the specific nature of the competition. We first replicated and extended the competition-dependent transient pattern for peripheral and variable target locations. We then investigated the role of feature similarity, compatibility, and proximity. Both competition by feature similarity and compatibility between the target and distractors were found to impair performance, but effects were additive with the effects of the cueing interval and did not change the transient performance function. Varying the spatial distance between target and distractors yielded mixed evidence, but here too a transient pattern could be observed for targets flanked by both close and far distractors. The results thus show that the presence or absence of competition determines whether attention appears transient or sustained, while the specific nature of the competition (in terms of location or feature) affects selection independent of time.

Earliest stages of visual cortical processing are not modified by attentional load

This study investigated the effects of attentional load on neural responses to attended and irrelevant visual stimuli by recording high-density event-related potentials (ERPs) from the scalp in normal adult subjects. Peripheral (upper and lower visual field) and central stimuli were presented in random order at a rapid rate while subjects responded to targets among the central stimuli. Color detection and color-orientation conjunction search tasks were used as the low- and high-load tasks, respectively. Behavioral results showed significant load effects on both accuracy and reaction time for target detections. ERP results revealed no significant load effect on the initial C1 component (60-100 ms) evoked by either central-relevant or peripheral-irrelevant stimuli. Source analysis with dipole modeling confirmed previous reports that the C1 includes the initial evoked response in primary visual cortex. Source analyses indicated that high attentional load enhanced the early (70-140 ms) neural response to central-relevant stimuli in ventral-lateral extrastriate cortex, whereas load effects on peripheral-irrelevant stimulus processing started at 110 ms and were localized to more dorsal and anterior extrastriate cortical areas. These results provide evidence that the earliest stages of visual cortical processing are not modified by attentional load and show that attentional load affects the processing of task relevant and irrelevant stimuli in different ways.

Constraints on dilution from a narrow attentional zoom reveal how spatial and color cues direct selection

Distractor interference is subject to dilution from other nontarget elements, and the level of dilution is affected by attention. This study explores the nature of dilution when the location and color of the target is known in advance. Experiments 1 and 2 show that attention is effectively limited to the precued region, so that it is the nontarget letters appearing at the cued locations that are responsible for most of the dilution, and not those appearing at the uncued locations. Furthermore, this dilution occurs relatively early in processing. Experiment 3 demonstrates that top-down attentional control can prevent dilution, because foreknowledge of the target color leads to quick attention shifts. Experiment 4 illustrates bottom-up attentional control in preventing dilution when the distractor is a color singleton that is segregated from the diluting nontargets. The results show that dilution is modulated by both top-down and bottom-up factors, that it can occur even when attention is restricted to a relatively small region, and that it occurs early in processing, but not so early that it avoids the effects of attention. They provide new challenges for earlier accounts suggesting that dilution is widespread and unfettered by attention. Likewise, some parts of the results are difficult to reconcile with the alternative perceptual load theory, but they do support a form of dilution that is limited by attentional boundaries. Because of that link to attention, dilution is a useful tool for measuring how attention is guided by information about target location and color.

A new perspective on the perceptual selectivity of attention under load

The human attention system helps us cope with a complex environment by supporting the selective processing of information relevant to our current goals. Understanding the perceptual, cognitive, and neural mechanisms that mediate selective attention is a core issue in cognitive neuroscience. One prominent model of selective attention, known as load theory, offers an account of how task demands determine when information is selected and an account of the efficiency of the selection process. However, load theory has several critical weaknesses that suggest that it is time for a new perspective. Here we review the strengths and weaknesses of load theory and offer an alternative biologically plausible computational account that is based on the neural theory of visual attention. We argue that this new perspective provides a detailed computational account of how bottom-up and top-down information is integrated to provide efficient attentional selection and allocation of perceptual processing resources.

Low level perceptual, not attentional, processes modulate distractor interference in high perceptual load displays: evidence from neglect/extinction

According to perceptual load theory (Lavie, 2005) distractor interference is determined by the availability of attentional resources. If target processing does not exhaust resources (with low perceptual load) distractor processing will take place resulting in interference with a primary task; however, when target processing uses-up attentional capacity (with high perceptual load) interference can be avoided. An alternative account (Tsal and Benoni, 2010a) suggests that perceptual load effects can be based on distractor dilution by the mere presence of additional neutral items in high-load displays so that the effect is not driven by the amount of attention resources required for target processing. Here we tested whether patients with unilateral neglect or extinction would show dilution effects from neutral items in their contralesional (neglected/extinguished) field, even though these items do not impose increased perceptual load on the target and at the same time attract reduced attentional resources compared to stimuli in the ipsilesional field. Thus, such items do not affect the amount of attention resources available for distractor processing. We found that contralesional neutral elements can eliminate distractor interference as strongly as centrally presented ones in neglect/extinction patients, despite contralesional items being less well attended. The data are consistent with an account in terms of perceptual dilution of distracters rather than available resources for distractor processing. We conclude that distractor dilution can underlie the elimination of distractor interference in visual displays.

Response terminated displays unload selective attention

Perceptual load theory successfully replaced the early vs. late selection debate by appealing to adaptive control over the efficiency of selective attention. Early selection is observed unless perceptual load (p-Load) is sufficiently low to grant attentional “spill-over” to task-irrelevant stimuli. Many studies exploring load theory have used limited display durations that perhaps impose artificial limits on encoding processes. We extended the exposure duration in a classic p-Load task to alleviate temporal encoding demands that may otherwise tax mnemonic consolidation processes. If the load effect arises from perceptual demands alone, then freeing-up available mnemonic resources by extending the exposure duration should have little effect. The results of Experiment 1 falsify this prediction. We observed a reliable flanker effect under high p-Load, response-terminated displays. Next, we orthogonally manipulated exposure duration and task-relevance. Counter-intuitively, we found that the likelihood of observing the flanker effect under high p-Load resides with the duration of the task-relevant array, not the flanker itself. We propose that stimulus and encoding demands interact to produce the load effect. Our account clarifies how task parameters differentially impinge upon cognitive processes to produce attentional “spill-over” by appealing to visual short-term memory as an additional processing bottleneck when stimuli are briefly presented.

Attentional sets influence perceptual load effects, but not dilution effects

Perceptual load theory [Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451-468.; Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994) Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 183-197.] proposes that interference from distractors can only be avoided in situations of high perceptual load. This theory has been supported by blocked design manipulations separating low load (when the target appears alone) and high load (when the target is embedded among neutral letters). Tsal and Benoni [(2010a). Diluting the burden of load: Perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1645-1656.; Benoni, H., & Tsal, Y. (2010). Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention. Vision Research, 50, 1292-1298.] have recently shown that these manipulations confound perceptual load with "dilution" (the mere presence of additional heterogeneous items in high-load situations). Theeuwes, Kramer, and Belopolsky [(2004). Attentional set interacts with perceptual load in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 697-702.] independently questioned load theory by suggesting that attentional sets might also affect distractor interference. When high load and low load were intermixed, and participants could not prepare for the presentation that followed, both the low-load and high-load trials showed distractor interference. This result may also challenge the dilution account, which proposes a stimulus-driven mechanism. In the current study, we presented subjects with both fixed and mixed blocks, including a mix of dilution trials with low-load trials and with high-load trials. We thus separated the effect of dilution from load and tested the influence of attentional sets on each component. The results revealed that whereas perceptual load effects are influenced by attentional sets, the dilution component is not. This strengthens the notion that dilution is a stimulus-driven mechanism, which enables effective selectivity.

Conceptual and methodological concerns in the theory of perceptual load

The present paper provides a short critical review of the theory of perceptual load. It closely examines the basic tenets and assumptions of the theory and identifies major conceptual and methodological problems that have been largely ignored in the literature. The discussion focuses on problems in the definition of the concept of perceptual load, on the circularity in the characterization and manipulation of perceptual load and the confusion between the concept of perceptual load and its operationalization. The paper also selectively reviews evidence supporting the theory as well as inconsistent evidence which proposed alternative dominant factors influencing the efficacy of attentional selection.

Dissociating compatibility effects and distractor costs in the additional singleton paradigm

The interpretation of identity compatibility effects associated with irrelevant items outside the nominal focus of attention has fueled much of the debate over early versus late selection and perceptual load theory. However, compatibility effects have also played a role in the debate over the extent to which the involuntary allocation of spatial attention (i.e., attentional capture) is completely stimulus-driven or whether it is contingent on top-down control settings. For example, in the context of the additional singleton paradigm, irrelevant color singletons have been found to produce not only an overall cost in search performance but also significant compatibility effects. This combination of search costs and compatibility effects has been taken as evidence that spatial attention is indeed allocated in a bottom-up fashion to the salient but irrelevant singletons. However, it is possible that compatibility effects in the additional singleton paradigm reflect parallel processing of identity associated with low perceptual load rather than an involuntary shift of spatial attention. In the present experiments, manipulations of load were incorporated into the traditional additional singleton paradigm. Under low-load conditions, both search costs and compatibility effects were obtained, replicating previous studies. Under high-load conditions, search costs were still present, but compatibility effects were eliminated. This dissociation suggests that the costs associated with irrelevant singletons may reflect filtering processes rather than the allocation of spatial attention.

Learning to ignore salient color distractors during serial search: evidence for experience-dependent attention allocation strategies

Previous research has investigated whether visual salience (i.e., how much an item stands out) or perceptual load (i.e., display complexity) is the dominant factor in visual selective attention. The evidence has been mixed, with some findings supporting a dominant role for visual salience and some findings supporting a dominant role for perceptual load. However, the complex displays used to impose high perceptual load also introduce a third factor that has gone understudied until recently: the interplay between identity dilution and exposure duration. Adding display items to increase perceptual load dilutes a distractor's identity, which could decrease interference, but the task generally takes longer, which could increase distractor interference. To clarify how these factors interact, the present study used converging measures of distractor interference—both compatibility and singleton presence—to disambiguate effects due to salience, perceptual load, and identity dilution/exposure duration. Compatibility effects support perceptual load as the dominant factor, whereas singleton presence effects do not (Experiment 1). Consistent with salience-based mechanisms, significant distractor processing (both compatibility and presence effects) occurred under high perceptual load when singleton present trials preceded singleton absent trials (Experiment 2A). However, consistent with load-based mechanisms, non-significant compatibility effects occurred under high perceptual load when singleton absent trials preceded singleton present trials (Experiment 2B). Thus, the competition between salience-based and load-based mechanisms depended on the amount of prior experience with singleton present vs. absent displays, which in turn depended on the use of broad vs. narrow attentional allocation strategies. These experience-dependent effects provide further evidence that attention allocation strategies are contingent on factors such as task context and experience.

Perceptual load vs. dilution: the roles of attentional focus, stimulus category, and target predictability

Many studies have shown that increasing the number of neutral stimuli in a display decreases distractor interference. This result has been interpreted within two different frameworks; a perceptual load account, based on a reduction in spare resources, and a dilution account, based on a degradation in distractor representation and/or an increase in crosstalk between the distractor and the neutral stimuli that contain visually similar features. In four experiments, we systematically manipulated the extent of attentional focus, stimulus category, and preknowledge of the target to examine how these factors would interact with the display set size to influence the degree of distractor processing. Display set size did not affect the degree of distractor processing in all situations. Increasing the number of neutral items decreased distractor processing only when a task induced a broad attentional focus that included the neutral stimuli, when the neutral stimuli were in the same category as the target and distractor, and when the preknowledge of the target was insufficient to guide attention to the target efficiently. These results suggest that the effect of neutral stimuli on the degree of distractor processing is more complex than previously assumed. They provide new insight into the competitive interactions between bottom-up and top-down processes that govern the efficiency of visual selective attention.

Degraded stimulus visibility and the effects of perceptual load on distractor interference

In this study we examined whether effects of perceptual load on the attentional selectivity are modulated by degradation of the visual input. According to the perceptual load theory, increasing task difficulty via degradation of stimulus visibility should not alter the typical effect of perceptual load. In previous studies only the target was degraded, resulting in increased distractor saliency. Here we combined manipulation of perceptual load with a more systematic degradation of visual information. Experiment 1 included five conditions. Three conditions involved low perceptual load + contrast reduction of: (A) only the target; (B) only the distractor; (C) both target and distractor. The other two conditions included non-degraded stimuli with low or high perceptual load. In Experiment 2 visibility degradation was established via manipulation of exposure duration. It included two exposure durations-100 and 150 ms-for each load level (low vs. high). The results of both experiments demonstrated reliable distractor interference of a similar magnitude with both degraded and non-degraded stimuli. This finding suggests that task difficulty, when manipulated via degradation of stimulus visibility, does not play a critical role in determining the efficiency of the attentional selectivity. However, contrary to the predictions of the perceptual load theory, in both experiments distractor interference emerged under the high load condition. In Experiment 2 the high-load interference was of the same magnitude as that of the low load condition. This high-load interference is not due to the presence of a mask (Experiment 3) or a mixed design (Experiment 4). These findings suggest that perceptual load may also play a lesser role in attentional selectivity than that assigned to it by the perceptual load theory.

Detection is unaffected by the deployment of focal attention

There has been much debate regarding how much information humans can extract from their environment without the use of limited attentional resources. In a recent study, Theeuwes et al. (2008) argued that even detection of simple feature targets is not possible without selection by focal attention. Supporting this claim, they found response time (RT) benefits in a simple feature (color) detection task when a target letter's identity was repeated on consecutive trials, suggesting that the letter was selected by focal attention and identified prior to detection. This intertrial repetition benefit remained even when observers were required to simultaneously identify a central digit. However, we found that intertrial repetition benefits disappeared when a simple color target was presented among a heterogeneously (rather than homogeneously) colored set of distractors, thus reducing its bottom–up salience. Still, detection performance remained high. Thus, detection performance was unaffected by whether a letter was focally attended and identified prior to detection or not. Intertrial identity repetition benefits also disappeared when observers were required to perform a simultaneous, attention-demanding central task (Experiment 2), or when unfamiliar Chinese characters were used (Experiment 3). Together, these results suggest that while shifts of focal attention can be affected by target salience, by the availability of excess cognitive resources, and by target familiarity, detection performance itself is unaffected by these manipulations and is thus unaffected by the deployment of focal attention.

Enhancement and suppression in the visual field under perceptual load

The perceptual load theory of attention proposes that the degree to which visual distractors are processed is a function of the attentional demands of a task-greater demands increase filtering of irrelevant distractors. The spatial configuration of such filtering is unknown. Here, we used steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) in conjunction with time-domain event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate the distribution of load-induced distractor suppression and task-relevant enhancement in the visual field. Electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded while subjects performed a foveal go/no-go task that varied in perceptual load. Load-dependent distractor suppression was assessed by presenting a contrast reversing ring at one of three eccentricities (2, 6, or 11°) during performance of the go/no-go task. Rings contrast reversed at 8.3 Hz, allowing load-dependent changes in distractor processing to be tracked in the frequency-domain. ERPs were calculated to the onset of stimuli in the load task to examine load-dependent modulation of task-relevant processing. Results showed that the amplitude of the distractor SSVEP (8.3 Hz) was attenuated under high perceptual load (relative to low load) at the most proximal (2°) eccentricity but not at more eccentric locations (6 or 11°). Task-relevant ERPs revealed a significant increase in N1 amplitude under high load. These results are consistent with a center-surround configuration of load-induced enhancement and suppression in the visual field.

Beyond perceptual load and dilution: a review of the role of working memory in selective attention

The perceptual load and dilution models differ fundamentally in terms of the proposed mechanism underlying variation in distractibility during different perceptual conditions. However, both models predict that distracting information can be processed beyond perceptual processing under certain conditions, a prediction that is well-supported by the literature. Load theory proposes that in such cases, where perceptual task aspects do not allow for sufficient attentional selectivity, the maintenance of task-relevant processing depends on cognitive control mechanisms, including working memory. The key prediction is that working memory plays a role in keeping clear processing priorities in the face of potential distraction, and the evidence reviewed and evaluated in a meta-analysis here supports this claim, by showing that the processing of distracting information tends to be enhanced when load on a concurrent task of working memory is high. Low working memory capacity is similarly associated with greater distractor processing in selective attention, again suggesting that the unavailability of working memory during selective attention leads to an increase in distractibility. Together, these findings suggest that selective attention against distractors that are processed beyond perception depends on the availability of working memory. Possible mechanisms for the effects of working memory on selective attention are discussed.

Competition explains limited attention and perceptual resources: implications for perceptual load and dilution theories

Both perceptual load theory and dilution theory purport to explain when and why task-irrelevant information, or so-called distractors are processed. Central to both explanations is the notion of limited resources, although the theories differ in the precise way in which those limitations affect distractor processing. We have recently proposed a neurally plausible explanation of limited resources in which neural competition among stimuli hinders their representation in the brain. This view of limited capacity can also explain distractor processing, whereby the competitive interactions and bias imposed to resolve the competition determine the extent to which a distractor is processed. This idea is compatible with aspects of both perceptual load and dilution models of distractor processing, but also serves to highlight their differences. Here we review the evidence in favor of a biased competition view of limited resources and relate these ideas to both classic perceptual load theory and dilution theory.

Perceptual demand modulates activation of human auditory cortex in response to task-irrelevant sounds

In the visual modality, perceptual demand on a goal-directed task has been shown to modulate the extent to which irrelevant information can be disregarded at a sensory-perceptual stage of processing. In the auditory modality, the effect of perceptual demand on neural representations of task-irrelevant sounds is unclear. We compared simultaneous ERPs and fMRI responses associated with task-irrelevant sounds across parametrically modulated perceptual task demands in a dichotic-listening paradigm. Participants performed a signal detection task in one ear (Attend ear) while ignoring task-irrelevant syllable sounds in the other ear (Ignore ear). Results revealed modulation of syllable processing by auditory perceptual demand in an ROI in middle left superior temporal gyrus and in negative ERP activity 130-230 msec post stimulus onset. Increasing the perceptual demand in the Attend ear was associated with a reduced neural response in both fMRI and ERP to task-irrelevant sounds. These findings are in support of a selection model whereby ongoing perceptual demands modulate task-irrelevant sound processing in auditory cortex.

Classic debates in selective attention: early vs late, perceptual load vs dilution, mean RT vs measures of capacity

We briefly summarize two important debates regarding selective attention (early vs late selection; perceptual load vs distractor dilution). Also, we report the results of an attempt to replicate Lavie (1995, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21 451-468). We suggest that measures capable of characterizing the capacity of information processing systems (compared to reporting only mean reaction time) could add great clarity to this literature.

Perceptual load corresponds with factors known to influence visual search

One account of the early versus late selection debate in attention proposes that perceptual load determines the locus of selection. Attention selects stimuli at a late processing level under low-load conditions but selects stimuli at an early level under high-load conditions. Despite the successes of perceptual load theory, a noncircular definition of perceptual load remains elusive. We investigated the factors that influence perceptual load by using manipulations that have been studied extensively in visual search, namely target-distractor similarity and distractor-distractor similarity. Consistent with previous work, search was most efficient when targets and distractors were dissimilar and the displays contained homogeneous distractors; search became less efficient when target-distractor similarity increased irrespective of display heterogeneity. Importantly, we used these same stimuli in a typical perceptual load task that measured attentional spillover to a task-irrelevant flanker. We found a strong correspondence between search efficiency and perceptual load; stimuli that generated efficient searches produced flanker interference effects, suggesting that such displays involved low perceptual load. Flanker interference effects were reduced in displays that produced less efficient searches. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that search difficulty, as measured by search intercept, has little bearing on perceptual load. We conclude that rather than be arbitrarily defined, perceptual load might be defined by well-characterized, continuous factors that influence visual search.

From classic to current: a look back on attention research in the American Journal of Psychology

This review examines attention research appearing in The American Journal of Psychology over the journal's rich 125-year history. In particular, the review examines studies focused on selective attention's role in modulating the influence of distraction and the methods used to capture the nature of selective attention. Special attention is given to classic articles by Treisman (1964a, 1964b), Neisser (1963), and Eriksen and Rohrbaugh (1970), whose methods and results are examined in detail in light of current theory and research in selective attention.