Hearing fearful prosody impairs visual working memory maintenance

Interference by distractors has been associated multiple times with diminished visual and auditory working memory (WM) performance. Negative emotional distractors in particular lead to detrimental effects on WM. However, these associations have only been seen when distractors and items to maintain in WM are from the same sensory modality. In this study, we investigate cross-modal interference on WM. We invited 20 participants to complete a visual change-detection task, assessing visual WM (VWM), while hearing emotional (fearful) and neutral auditory distractors. Electrophysiological activity was recorded to measure contralateral delay activity (CDA) and auditory P2 event-related potentials (ERP), indexing WM maintenance and distractor salience respectively. At the behavioral level, fearful prosody didn't decrease significantly working memory accuracy, compared to neutral prosody. Regarding ERPs, fearful distractors evoked a greater P2 amplitude than neutral distractors. Correlations between the two ERP potentials indicated that P2 amplitude difference between the two types of prosody was associated with the difference in CDA amplitude for fearful and neutral trials. This association suggests that cognitive resources required to process fearful prosody detrimentally impact VWM maintenance. That result provides a piece of additional evidence that negative emotional stimuli produce greater interference than neutral stimuli and that the cognitive resources used to process stimuli from different modalities come from a common pool.

Relative saliency affects attentional capture and suppression of color and face singleton distractors: evidence from event-related potential studies

Prior research has yet to fully elucidate the impact of varying relative saliency between target and distractor on attentional capture and suppression, along with their underlying neural mechanisms, especially when social (e.g. face) and perceptual (e.g. color) information interchangeably serve as singleton targets or distractors, competing for attention in a search array. Here, we employed an additional singleton paradigm to investigate the effects of relative saliency on attentional capture (as assessed by N2pc) and suppression (as assessed by PD) of color or face singleton distractors in a visual search task by recording event-related potentials. We found that face singleton distractors with higher relative saliency induced stronger attentional processing. Furthermore, enhancing the physical salience of colors using a bold color ring could enhance attentional processing toward color singleton distractors. Reducing the physical salience of facial stimuli by blurring weakened attentional processing toward face singleton distractors; however, blurring enhanced attentional processing toward color singleton distractors because of the change in relative saliency. In conclusion, the attentional processes of singleton distractors are affected by their relative saliency to singleton targets, with higher relative saliency of singleton distractors resulting in stronger attentional capture and suppression; faces, however, exhibit some specificity in attentional capture and suppression due to high social saliency.

Search mode, not the attentional window, determines the magnitude of attentional capture

A salient color distractor is known to capture attention during search for a less salient shape target, but the mechanisms underlying attentional capture are debated. Theeuwes (2004, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 65-70) argued that attentional capture depends on the size of the attentional window. If the attentional window is large, search is efficient and attentional capture should be stronger because the distractor is more likely to be inside the window. Consistently, we found higher search efficiency and more attentional capture in singleton than in feature search. However, differences in attentional capture only occurred when singleton and feature search were performed by different groups of participants, but not when singleton and feature search occurred unpredictably in the same group of participants. This result contradicts the attentional window account because search efficiency was always higher in singleton than in feature search. Rather, the results support search mode theory, which claims that participants looked for the most salient stimulus in singleton search ("singleton detection mode"), which resulted in more capture by the salient color distractor. When search types varied unpredictably, it was impossible to apply a consistent search strategy, which eliminated the differences between singleton and feature search. Further, we manipulated search efficiency by target-nontarget similarity. With dissimilar nontargets, the target was salient and search efficiency was high. Therefore, the attentional window account predicts more capture. However, we found the opposite result in singleton search and no difference in feature search. Taken together, these observations are inconsistent with the attentional window account but support search mode theory.

Different prioritization states of working memory representations affect visual searches: Evidence from an event-related potential study

Previous evidence has shown that the contents of working memory (WM) can bias visual selection. However, not much is known about how WM effects change when the WM representation is held in different prioritization states. Here, we investigated this problem using event-related potentials. Subjects maintained two colors in WM while performing a search task. One of the colors was retro-cued, indicating that it was 80 % likely to be the target of the memory test. During the search display, one of the distractors was a salient color singleton, and this singleton distractor could carry the same color as the cued WM representation, the uncued WM representation, or be irrelevant to the memory content. Behaviorally, the memory test performance was found to be better for the cued color than for the uncued color, and we observed lower search accuracy (ACC) and longer search reaction time (RT) when the singleton distractor matched the cued WM representation than when it matched an uncued or an irrelevant WM representation. Event-related potential (ERP) data showed that the P3 amplitude of cue-color distractor conditions was smaller than that of uncued-color distractor conditions and irrelevant-color distractor conditions. These findings clearly indicate that prioritizing an item for enhanced representational quality enables the item to bias attention to a greater extent.

The Distractor Positivity Component and the Inhibition of Distracting Stimuli

There has been a long-lasting debate about whether salient stimuli, such as uniquely colored objects, have the ability to automatically distract us. To resolve this debate, it has been suggested that salient stimuli do attract attention but that they can be suppressed to prevent distraction. Some research supporting this viewpoint has focused on a newly discovered ERP component called the distractor positivity (PD), which is thought to measure an inhibitory attentional process. This collaborative review summarizes previous research relying on this component with a specific emphasis on how the PD has been used to understand the ability to ignore distracting stimuli. In particular, we outline how the PD component has been used to gain theoretical insights about how search strategy and learning can influence distraction. We also review alternative accounts of the cognitive processes indexed by the PD component. Ultimately, we conclude that the PD component is a useful tool for understanding inhibitory processes related to distraction and may prove to be useful in other areas of study related to cognitive control.

Distractor suppression does and does not depend on pre-distractor alpha-band activity

Selective attention enhances behaviorally important information and suppresses distracting information. Research on the neural basis of selective attention has largely focused on sensory enhancement, with less focus on sensory suppression. Enhancement and suppression can operate through a push-pull relationship that arises from competitive interactions among neural populations. There has been considerable debate, however, regarding (i) whether suppression can also operate independent of enhancement and (ii) whether neural processes associated with the voluntary deployment of suppression can occur prior to distractor onset. We provide further behavioral and electrophysiological evidence of independent suppression at cued distractor locations while humans performed a visual search task. We specifically utilize two established EEG markers of suppression: alpha power (∼8-15 Hz) and the distractor positivity (P _D ). Increased alpha power has been linked with attenuated sensory processing, while the P _D -a component of event-related potentials-has been linked with successful distractor suppression. The present results demonstrate that cueing the location of an upcoming distractor speeded responding and led to an earlier onset P _D , consistent with earlier suppression due to strategic use of a spatial cue. We further demonstrate that higher pre-distractor alpha power contralateral to distractors was generally associated with successful suppression on both cued and non-cued trials. However, there was no consistent change in alpha power associated with the spatial cue, meaning cueing effects on behavioral and neural measures occurred independent of alpha-related gating of sensory processing. These findings reveal the importance of pre-distractor neural processes for subsequent distractor suppression.

Significance Statement

Selective suppression of distracting information is important for survival, contributing to preferential processing of behaviorally important information. Does foreknowledge of an upcoming distractor's location help with suppression? Here, we recorded EEG while subjects performed a target detection task with cues that indicated the location of upcoming distractors. Behavioral and electrophysiological results revealed that foreknowledge of a distractor's location speeded suppression, thereby facilitating target detection. The results further revealed a significant relationship between pre-stimulus alpha-band activity and successful suppression; however, pre-stimulus alpha-band activity was not consistently lateralized relative to the spatially informative cues. The present findings therefore demonstrate that target detection can benefit from foreknowledge of distractor location in a process that is independent of alpha-related gating of sensory processing.

Does attentional suppression occur at the level of perception or decision-making? Evidence from Gaspelin et al.'s (2015) probe letter task

Visual attention is often inadvertently captured by salient stimuli. It was suggested that it is possible to prevent attentional capture in some search tasks by suppressing salient stimuli below baseline. Evidence for attentional suppression comes from a probe task that was interleaved with the main search task. In the probe task of Gaspelin et al. (Psychol Sci 26(11):1740-1750, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615597913 ), letters were shown on the stimuli of the search display and participants had to identify as many letters as possible. Performance was found to be worse for letters shown on the distractor compared to non-salient non-target stimuli, suggesting that distractor processing was suppressed below baseline. However, it is unclear whether suppression occurred at the level of perception or decision-making because participants may have reported letters on the distractor less frequently than letters on nontargets. This decision-level bias may have degraded performance for letters on distractor compared to nontarget stimuli without changing perception. After replicating the original findings, we conducted two experiments where we avoided report bias by cueing only a single letter for report. We found that the difference between distractor and nontarget stimuli was strongly reduced, suggesting that decision-level processes contribute to attentional suppression. In contrast, the difference between target and non-target stimuli was unchanged, suggesting that it reflected perceptual-level enhancement of the target stimuli.

Target templates and the time course of distractor location learning

When searching for a shape target, colour distractors typically capture our attention. Capture is smaller when observers search for a fixed target that allows for a feature-specific target template compared to a varying shape singleton target. Capture is also reduced when observers learn to predict the likely distractor location. We investigated how the precision of the target template modulates distractor location learning in an additional singleton search task. As observers are less prone to capture with a feature-specific target, we assumed that distractor location learning is less beneficial and therefore less pronounced than with a mixed-feature target. Hierarchical Bayesian parameter estimation was used to fit fine-grained distractor location learning curves. A model-based analysis of the time course of distractor location learning revealed an effect on the asymptotic performance level: when searching for a fixed-feature target, the asymptotic distractor cost indicated smaller distractor interference than with a mixed-feature target. Although interference was reduced for distractors at the high-probability location in both tasks, asymptotic distractor suppression was less pronounced with fixed-feature compared to mixed-feature targets. We conclude that with a more precise target template less distractor location learning is required, likely because the distractor dimension is down-weighted and its salience signal reduced.

Dynamics of attentional allocation to targets and distractors during visual search

There is much debate about the neural mechanisms that achieve suppression of salient distracting stimuli during visual search. The proactive suppression hypothesis asserts that if exposed to the same distractors repeatedly, these stimuli are actively inhibited before attention can be shifted to them. A contrasting proposal holds that attention is initially captured by salient distractors but is subsequently withdrawn. By concurrently measuring stimulus-driven and intrinsic brain potentials in 36 healthy human participants, we obtained converging evidence against early proactive suppression of distracting input. Salient distractors triggered negative event-related potentials (N1pc/N2pc), enhanced the steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) relative to non-salient (filler) stimuli, and suppressed contralateral relative to ipsilateral alpha-band amplitudes-three electrophysiological measure associated with the allocation of attention-even though these distractors did not interfere with behavioral responses to the search targets. Furthermore, these measures indicated that both stimulus-driven and goal-driven allocations of attention occurred in conjunction with one another, with the goal-driven effect enhancing and prolonging the stimulus-driven effect. These results provide a new perspective on the traditional dichotomy between bottom-up and top-down attentional allocation. Control experiments revealed that continuous marking of the locations at which the search display items were presented resulted in a dramatic and unexpected conversion of the target-elicited N2pc into a shorter-latency N1pc in association with faster reaction times to the targets.

Assessing Inhibitory Control in the Real World Is Virtually Possible: A Virtual Reality Demonstration

Executive functions are the key ingredient for behaviour regulation. Among them, inhibitory control is one of the main exponents of executive functions, and in the last decades, it has received a good amount of attention thanks to the development of chronometric tasks associated with paradigms that allow exploring human behaviour when the inhibitory component is needed. Among the different paradigms typically used, the Simon and flanker tasks are probably the most popular ones. These have been subjected to modifications in order to assess inhibitory control from different perspectives (e.g., in different samples or in combination with different research techniques). However, its use has been relegated to classical presentation modalities within laboratory settings. The accessibility of virtual reality (VR) technology has opened new research avenues to investigate inhibition control with a high ecological validity while retaining tightly controlled lab conditions and good measurement accuracy. We present two cutting-edge modifications of the standard Simon and flanker tasks that have been adapted to real-world settings using VR and human-like avatars as target stimuli. Our findings show that virtual reality is a credible tool for testing inhibitory control with a high degree of transferability and generalizability to the real world.

Landmark selection for route instructions: At which corner of an intersection is the preferred landmark located?

Cognitive studies showed that good landmarks–salient objects in the environment–make it easier for recipients of route instructions to find their way to the destination. Adding landmarks to route instructions also improves mobile navigation systems for pedestrians. But, which landmarks do people consider most helpful when giving route instructions? Four experiments explored this question. In the first experiment, the environment, including the route and landmarks, was presented on a map. The landmarks were located at the four corners of a right-angled intersection. Participants had to select those landmark-based route instructions they considered most helpful. In all other experiments, the environment was presented from an egocentric perspective, either in a video or as a sequence of pictures of intersections. Participants had to select those landmarks they would use in a route instruction. All landmarks had the same visual and semantic salience. The positions of the participants at the intersection were varied. Results show that participants consistently selected landmarks at the side of the road into which they had to turn. Moreover, the participants' position at the intersection affected whether they selected landmarks before or behind the decision point. These results have consequences for human spatial cognition research and for the automatic selection of landmarks in mobile pedestrian navigation systems.

Eye movements reveal the contributions of early and late processes of enhancement and suppression to the guidance of visual search

In visual search attention can be directed towards items matching top-down goals, but this must compete with factors such as salience that can capture attention. However, under some circumstances it appears that attention can avoid known distractor features. Chang and Egeth (Psychological Science, 30 (12), 1724–1732, 2019) found that such inhibitory effects reflect a combination of distractor-feature suppression and target-feature enhancement. In the present study (N = 48), we extend these findings by revealing that suppression and enhancement effects guide overt attention. On search trials (75% of trials) participants searched for a diamond shape among several other shapes. On half of the search trials all objects were the same colour (e.g., green) and on the other half of the search trials one of the non-target shapes appeared in a different colour (e.g., red). On interleaved probe trials (25% of trials), subjects were presented with four ovals. One of the ovals was in either the colour of the target or the colour of the distractor from the search trials. The other three ovals were on neutral colours. Critically, we found that attention was overtly captured by target colours and avoided distractor colours when they were viewed in a background of neutral colours. In addition, we provided a time course of attentional control. Within visual search tasks we observed inhibition aiding early attentional effects, indexed by the time it took gaze to first reach the target, as well as later decision-making processes indexed by the time for a decision to be made once the target as found.

What to expect where and when: how statistical learning drives visual selection

While the visual environment contains massive amounts of information, we should not and cannot pay attention to all events. Instead, we need to direct attention to those events that have proven to be important in the past and suppress those that were distracting and irrelevant. Experiences molded through a learning process enable us to extract and adapt to the statistical regularities in the world. While previous studies have shown that visual statistical learning (VSL) is critical for representing higher order units of perception, here we review the role of VSL in attentional selection. Evidence suggests that through VSL, attentional priority settings are optimally adjusted to regularities in the environment, without intention and without conscious awareness.

Ten simple rules to study distractor suppression

Distractor suppression refers to the ability to filter out distracting and task-irrelevant information. Distractor suppression is essential for survival and considered a key aspect of selective attention. Despite the recent and rapidly evolving literature on distractor suppression, we still know little about how the brain suppresses distracting information. What limits progress is that we lack mutually agreed upon principles of how to study the neural basis of distractor suppression and its manifestation in behavior. Here, we offer ten simple rules that we believe are fundamental when investigating distractor suppression. We provide guidelines on how to design conclusive experiments on distractor suppression (Rules 1-3), discuss different types of distractor suppression that need to be distinguished (Rules 4-6), and provide an overview of models of distractor suppression and considerations of how to evaluate distractor suppression statistically (Rules 7-10). Together, these rules provide a concise and comprehensive synopsis of promising advances in the field of distractor suppression. Following these rules will propel research on distractor suppression in important ways, not only by highlighting prominent issues to both new and more advanced researchers in the field, but also by facilitating communication between sub-disciplines.

Do Subliminal Fearful Facial Expressions Capture Attention?

In two experiments, we tested whether fearful facial expressions capture attention in an awareness-independent fashion. In Experiment 1, participants searched for a visible neutral face presented at one of two positions. Prior to the target, a backward-masked and, thus, invisible emotional (fearful/disgusted) or neutral face was presented as a cue, either at target position or away from the target position. If negative emotional faces capture attention in a stimulus-driven way, we would have expected a cueing effect: better performance where fearful or disgusted facial cues were presented at target position than away from the target. However, no evidence of capture of attention was found, neither in behavior (response times or error rates), nor in event-related lateralizations (N2pc). In Experiment 2, we went one step further and used fearful faces as visible targets, too. Thereby, we sought to boost awareness-independent capture of attention by fearful faces. However, still, we found no significant attention-capture effect. Our results show that fearful facial expressions do not capture attention in an awareness-independent way. Results are discussed in light of existing theories.

Cross-modal contextual memory guides selective attention in visual-search tasks

Visual search is speeded when a target item is positioned consistently within an invariant (repeatedly encountered) configuration of distractor items ("contextual cueing"). Contextual cueing is also observed in cross-modal search, when the location of the-visual-target is predicted by distractors from another-tactile-sensory modality. Previous studies examining lateralized waveforms of the event-related potential (ERP) with millisecond precision have shown that learned visual contexts improve a whole cascade of search-processing stages. Drawing on ERPs, the present study tested alternative accounts of contextual cueing in tasks in which distractor-target contextual associations are established across, as compared to, within sensory modalities. To this end, we devised a novel, cross-modal search task: search for a visual feature singleton, with repeated (and nonrepeated) distractor configurations presented either within the same (visual) or a different (tactile) modality. We found reaction times (RTs) to be faster for repeated versus nonrepeated configurations, with comparable facilitation effects between visual (unimodal) and tactile (crossmodal) context cues. Further, for repeated configurations, there were enhanced amplitudes (and reduced latencies) of ERPs indexing attentional allocation (PCN) and postselective analysis of the target (CDA), respectively; both components correlated positively with the RT facilitation. These effects were again comparable between uni- and crossmodal cueing conditions. In contrast, motor-related processes indexed by the response-locked LRP contributed little to the RT effects. These results indicate that both uni- and crossmodal context cues benefit the same, visual processing stages related to the selection and subsequent analysis of the search target.

Electrophysiological Evidence for the Suppression of Highly Salient Distractors

There has been a longstanding debate as to whether salient stimuli have the power to involuntarily capture attention. As a potential resolution to this debate, the signal suppression hypothesis proposes that salient items generate a bottom-up signal that automatically attracts attention, but that salient items can be suppressed by top-down mechanisms to prevent attentional capture. Despite much support, the signal suppression hypothesis has been challenged on the grounds that many prior studies may have used color singletons with relatively low salience that are too weak to capture attention. The current study addressed this by using previous methods to study suppression but increased the set size to improve the relative salience of the color singletons. To assess whether salient distractors captured attention, electrophysiological markers of attentional allocation (the N2pc component) and suppression (the PD component) were measured. The results provided no evidence of attentional capture, but instead indicated suppression of the highly salient singleton distractors, as indexed by the PD component. This suppression occurred even though a computational model of saliency confirmed that the color singleton was highly salient. Altogether, this supports the signal suppression hypothesis and is inconsistent with stimulus-driven models of attentional capture.

Covert Attention to Gestures Is Sufficient for Information Uptake

Numerous studies have explored the benefit of iconic gestures in speech comprehension. However, only few studies have investigated how visual attention was allocated to these gestures in the context of clear versus degraded speech and the way information is extracted for enhancing comprehension. This study aimed to explore the effect of iconic gestures on comprehension and whether fixating the gesture is required for information extraction. Four types of gestures (i.e., semantically and syntactically incongruent iconic gestures, meaningless configurations, and congruent iconic gestures) were presented in a sentence context in three different listening conditions (i.e., clear, partly degraded or fully degraded speech). Using eye tracking technology, participants’ gaze was recorded, while they watched video clips after which they were invited to answer simple comprehension questions. Results first showed that different types of gestures differently attract attention and that the more speech was degraded, the less participants would pay attention to gestures. Furthermore, semantically incongruent gestures appeared to particularly impair comprehension although not being fixated while congruent gestures appeared to improve comprehension despite also not being fixated. These results suggest that covert attention is sufficient to convey information that will be processed by the listener.

Enhancing banknote authentication by guiding attention to security features and manipulating prevalence expectancy

All banknotes have security features which are intended to help determine whether they are false or genuine. Typically, however, the general public has limited knowledge of where on a banknote these security features can be found. Here, we tested whether counterfeit detection can be improved with the help of salient elements, designed to guide bottom-up visuospatial attention. We also tested the influence of the participant's a priori level of trust in the authenticity of the banknote. In an online study (N = 422), a demographically diverse panel of Dutch participants distinguished genuine banknotes from banknotes with one (left- or right-sided) counterfeited security feature. Either normal banknotes (without novel design elements) or banknotes that contained a salient element (a pink rectangular frame) were presented for 1 s. To manipulate the participant's level of trust, trials were administered in three blocks, whereby at the start of each block, participants were instructed that either one third, one half, or two thirds of the upcoming banknotes were counterfeit (though the true ratio was always 1:1). We hypothesized (i) that in the presence of a salient element, counterfeits would be better detected when the location of the salient element aligned with the location of the counterfeited security feature-i.e. that it would act as an attentional cue; and (ii) that this effect would be stronger with lower trust. Our hypotheses were partly confirmed: counterfeit detection improved with 'valid cues' and decreasing trust, but the level of trust did not modulate the cueing effect. As the overall detection performance was rather poor, we replicated the study with a sample of university students (N = 66), this time presenting stimuli until response. While indeed observing better overall performance, all other patterns were replicated. Our results provide evidence that attention can be guided to enhance banknote authentication.

Diversion of Attention Leads to Conflict between Concurrently Attended Stimuli, Not Delayed Orienting to the Object of Interest

The control processes that guide attention to a visual-search target can result in the selection of an irrelevant object with similar features (a distractor). Once attention is captured by such a distractor, search for a subsequent target is momentarily impaired if the two stimuli appear at different locations. The textbook explanation for this impairment is based on the notion of an indivisible focus of attention that moves to the distractor, illuminates a nontarget that subsequently appears at that location, and then moves to the target once the nontarget is rejected. Here, we show that such delayed orienting to the target does not underlie the behavioral cost of distraction. Observers identified a color-defined target appearing within the second of two stimulus arrays. The first array contained irrelevant items, including one that shared the target's color. ERPs were examined to test two predictions stemming from the textbook serial-orienting hypothesis. Namely, when the target and distractor appear at different locations, (1) the target should elicit delayed selection activity relative to same-location trials, and (2) the nontarget search item appearing at the distractor location should elicit selection activity that precedes selection activity tied to the target. Here, the posterior contralateral N2 component was used to track selection of each of these search-array items and the previous distractor. The results supported neither prediction above, thereby disconfirming the serial-orienting hypothesis. Overall, the results show that the behavioral costs of distraction are caused by perceptual and postperceptual competition between concurrently attended target and nontarget stimuli.

Attention and distraction in the predictive brain

Whether it is possible to ignore a physically salient distractor has been a topic of active debate over the past 25 years, with empirical evidence for and against each of the theoretical stances. We put forward that predictive processing may provide a unified theoretical perspective that can account reasonably well for the empirical literature on attentional capture. In this perspective, capture is a logical consequence of the overall imperative of the brain to predict what sensory signals provide precise information to achieve goal-directed behaviour.

Standing out in a small crowd: The role of display size in attracting attention

Strong evidence supporting the top-down modulation of attention has come from studies in which participants learned to suppress a singleton in a heterogeneous four-item display. These studies have been criticized on the grounds that the displays are so sparse that the singleton is not actually salient. We argue that similar evidence of suppression has been found with substantially larger displays where salience is not in question. Additionally, we examine the results of applying salience models to four-item displays, and find prominent markers of salience at the location of the singleton. We conclude that small heterogeneous displays do not preclude strong salience signals. Beyond that, we reflect on how further basic research on salience may speed resolution of the attentional capture debate.

Preparatory Control Against Distraction Is Not Feature-Based

Salient-but-irrelevant stimuli (distractors) co-occurring with search targets can capture attention against the observer's will. Recently, evidence has accumulated that preparatory control can prevent this misguidance of spatial attention in predictable situations. However, the underlying mechanisms have remained elusive. Most pertinent theories assume that attention is guided by specific features. This widespread theoretical claim provides several strong predictions with regard to distractor handling that are disconfirmed here: Employing electrophysiological markers of covert attentional dynamics, in three experiments, we show that distractors standing out by a feature that is categorically different from the target consistently captures attention. However, equally salient distractors standing out in a different feature dimension are effectively down-weighted, even if unpredictably swapping their defining feature with the target. This shows that preparing for a distractor's feature is neither necessary nor sufficient for successful avoidance of attentional capture. Rather, capture is prevented by preparing for the distractor's feature dimension.

Attention and distraction in the predictive brain

Whether it is possible to ignore a physically salient distractor has been a topic of active debate over the past 25 years, with empirical evidence for and against each of the theoretical stances. We put forward that predictive processing may provide a unified theoretical perspective that can account reasonably well for the empirical literature on attentional capture. In this perspective, capture is a logical consequence of the overall imperative of the brain to predict what sensory signals provide precise information to achieve goal-directed behaviour.

On preventing attention capture: Is singleton suppression actually singleton suppression?

It is commonly assumed that salient singletons generate an "attend-to-me signal" which causes suppression to develop over time, eventually preventing capture. Despite this assumption and the name "singleton suppression," a causal link between salience and suppression has not yet been clearly established. We point out the plausibility of a simple alternative mechanism: distractors might be suppressed because they are distractors rather than targets, even when non-salient. To look for evidence of salience-based suppression, we had participants search for a target shape among distractors, which sometimes included irrelevant-colored distractors. The critical manipulation was whether the irrelevant-colored distractor was salient (a color singleton) or non-salient (three non-target colored shapes; a triplet). On 30% of trials, probe letters were presented briefly inside each shape and participants were to report those letters. Probe recall below baseline indicates suppression. Experiment 1 showed that suppression was not triggered any more strongly by salient distractors (singletons) than by non-salient distractors (triplets). Experiment 2 showed that strong suppression effects developed rapidly even in the absence of salient singletons. These findings raise the thus far neglected question of whether salience plays any role in suppression.

Classic Visual Search Effects in an Additional Singleton Task: An Open Dataset

Visual search refers to our ability to find what we are looking for among many competing visual inputs. Here, we report the availability of a rich dataset that replicates key visual search effects and shows that these effects are robust to several changes to the experimental design. Experiment 1 replicates classic findings from an additional singleton visual search task. First, participants are captured by a salient but irrelevant color singleton, as indexed by slower response times when a color singleton distractor is present versus absent. Second, attentional capture by a color singleton is reduced when the visual search array contains heterogeneous shapes rather than homogenous shapes. Finally, attentional capture by a color singleton is reduced when the display colors are repeated rather than switched unpredictably from trial to trial. Experiment 2 demonstrates that these classic visual search effects are robust to small procedural changes such as task timing (i.e., a 2-8 second rather than ~1 second inter-trial interval). Experiment 3 demonstrates that these classic effects are likewise robust to changes to the distractor frequency (75% rather than 50%) and to fully blocking versus interleaving blocks of two task conditions. All told, this dataset includes 8 sub-experiments, 190 participants and >210,000 trials, and it will serve as a useful resource for power analyses and exploratory analyses of visual search behaviors.

PD components and distractor inhibition in visual search: New evidence for the signal suppression hypothesis

The hypothesis that salient distractors in visual search are actively suppressed is supported by the fact that these objects elicit P_D components believed to be associated with inhibition. This account was challenged by researchers who found that a P_D to lateral color singleton distractors was followed by a contralateral negativity, which they interpreted as an N2pc indicative of attentional capture. As this would be at odds with successful distractor suppression, they proposed an alternative lateral-first serial scanning hypothesis, which assumes that the P_D might actually be an N2pc elicited when a lateral context item is selected. We tested this hypothesis by measuring lateralized ERP components to search displays with two lateral and two vertical midline items, including a color singleton and a shape-defined target. Color singletons triggered P_D components not only in blocks where attention was unfocused because target location was unpredictable, but critically also in blocks where targets only appeared on the midline and participants had no reason to attend to lateral items. This is inconsistent with the serial scanning hypothesis and supports the idea that the P_D reflects signal suppression. P_D components to singleton distractors were followed by a contralateral negativity, which we interpreted as a second P_D elicited by nonsalient distractors on the opposite side. Our sequential inhibition account reconciles conflicting results of recent studies and emphasizes the role of inhibitory processes during attentional target selection in visual search.

Distractor suppression leads to reduced flanker interference

Recent studies using the additional singleton paradigm have shown that regularities in distractor locations can cause biases in the spatial priority map, such that attentional capture by salient singletons is reduced for locations that are likely to contain distractors. It has been suggested that this type of suppression is proactive (i.e., occurring before display onset). The current study replicated the original findings using an online version of the task. To further assess the suppression of high-probability locations, we employed a congruence manipulation similar to the traditional flanker effect, where distractors could be either congruent or incongruent with the response to the target. Experiment 1 shows that through statistical learning distractor suppression reduces the interference from incongruent distractors, as participants made less errors in high-probability versus low-probability conditions. In Experiment 2, participants were forced to search for a specific target feature (the so-called feature-search mode), which is assumed to allow participants to ignore distractors in a top-down manner. Yet even when this "top-down" search mode was employed, there was still a congruence effect when the distractor singleton was presented at the low-probability but not at the high-probability location. The absence, but not reversal, of a congruence effect at the high-probability location also further indicates that this distractor suppression mechanism is proactive. The results indicate that regardless of the search mode used, there is suppression of the high-probability location indicating that this location competes less for attention within the spatial priority map than all other locations.

Progress Toward Resolving the Attentional Capture Debate

For over 25 years, researchers have debated whether physically salient stimuli capture attention in an automatic manner, independent of the observer's goals, or whether the capture of attention depends on the match between a stimulus and the observer's task set. Recent evidence suggests an intermediate position in which salient stimuli automatically produce a priority signal, but the capture of attention can be prevented via an inhibitory mechanism that suppresses the salient stimulus. Here, proponents from multiple sides of the debate describe how their original views have changed in light of recent research, as well as remaining areas of disagreement. These perspectives highlight some emerging areas of consensus and provide new directions for future research on attentional capture.

Statistical regularities cause attentional suppression with target-matching distractors

Visual search may be disrupted by the presentation of salient, but irrelevant stimuli. To reduce the impact of salient distractors, attention may suppress their processing below baseline level. While there are many studies on the attentional suppression of distractors with features distinct from the target (e.g., a color distractor with a shape target), there is little and inconsistent evidence for attentional suppression with distractors sharing the target feature. In this study, distractor and target were temporally separated in a cue–target paradigm, where the cue was shown briefly before the target display. With target-matching cues, RTs were shorter when the cue appeared at the target location (valid cues) compared with when it appeared at a nontarget location (invalid cues). To induce attentional suppression, we presented the cue more frequently at one out of four possible target positions. We found that invalid cues appearing at the high-frequency cue position produced less interference than invalid cues appearing at a low-frequency cue position. Crucially, target processing was also impaired at the high-frequency cue position, providing strong evidence for attentional suppression of the cued location. Overall, attentional suppression of the frequent distractor location could be established through feature-based attention, suggesting that feature-based attention may guide attentional suppression just as it guides attentional enhancement.

Can salient stimuli really be suppressed?

Although it is often assumed that a physically salient stimulus automatically captures attention even when it is irrelevant to a current task, the signal-suppression hypothesis proposes that observers can actively suppress a salient-but-irrelevant distractor. However, it is still unknown whether suppression alone (i.e., without target enhancement) is potent enough to override attentional capture by a salient singleton in an otherwise-homogeneous background. The current study addressed this issue. On search trials (70% of trials), participants searched for a shape target on trials that either did or did not contain an irrelevant color singleton. The effects of learning to suppress the color of the singleton were examined on interleaved probe trials (30% of trials). On these trials, participants searched for a probe target letter; those letters were presented on four ovals (one colored oval and three gray ovals). Each colored oval was a singleton that was one of three types: the color of the distractor on search trials, the color of the target on search trials, or a neutral color that had not appeared on search trials. Responses were faster for the probe target on a neutral-colored or target-colored item than on a gray-colored item; however, responses were slower for the probe target on a distractor-colored item than on a gray-colored item. The results demonstrate a powerful suppression mechanism overriding attentional capture by a singleton item.