The attentional capture debate: the long-lasting consequences of a misnomer

Confidence for intrusion errors during the attentional blink depends on target-defining features

Research surrounding the attentional blink phenomenon - a deficit in responding to the second of two temporally proximal stimuli when presented 150-500 ms after the first - has used a wide variety of target-defining and response features of stimuli. The typical U-shape curve for absolute performance is robust, surviving across most stimulus features, and therefore changes in performance are discussed as dynamics in an attentional system that are nonspecific a stimulus type. However, the patterns of errors participants make might not show the same robustness, and participants' confidences in these errors might differ - potentially suggesting the involvement of different attentional or perceptual mechanisms. The present research is a comparison of error patterns and confidence in those errors when letter target stimuli are defined by either the color of the letter, the presence of a surrounding annulus, or the color of the annulus. Across three experiments, we show that participants erroneously report stimuli that are further away from T2 and they are similarly confident in specifically their post-target errors as their correct responses when annuli define targets, but not when color of the letter defines targets. Experiment 3 provides some evidence to suggest that this error pattern and associated confidence is time-dependent when the color of the annulus defines the target, but not when the color of the letter defines the target. These results raise questions concerning the nature of the errors and possibly the mechanisms of the attentional blink phenomenon itself.

Influence of flavor information on visual search: Attentional capture by and suppression of flavor-associated colors

Numerous studies have demonstrated the impact of flavor cues on visual search, yet the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. In this experiment, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to examine whether, and if so, how flavor information could lead to attentional capture by, and suppression of, flavor-associated colors. The participants were asked to taste certain flavored beverages and subsequently complete a shape-based visual search task, while their neural activities were simultaneously recorded. The behavioral results revealed that the participants made slower responses when a distractor in the flavor-associated color (DFAC) was present, suggesting an attentional bias toward the flavor-associated color. The ERP results revealed that the N2pc was detected if the target and the DFAC were shown in the same visual field (e.g. both target and DFCA on the right side of the screen), when the pairings between flavor cues and target colors were incongruent. However, the N2pc was not observed if the target and the DFAC were shown in the opposite visual fields (e.g. target on the right and DFCA on the left side of the screen) for the incongruent color-flavor pairings. Moreover, the distractor positivity (Pd) was observed if the target and the DFAC were shown in the opposite visual field for the congruent color-flavor pairings. These results suggest that both attentional capture and suppression are involved in the influence of flavor information on visual search. Collectively, these findings provide initial electrophysiological evidence on the mechanisms of the crossmodal influence of flavor cues on visual search.

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.

Terms of debate: Consensus definitions to guide the scientific discourse on visual distraction

Hypothesis-driven research rests on clearly articulated scientific theories. The building blocks for communicating these theories are scientific terms. Obviously, communication - and thus, scientific progress - is hampered if the meaning of these terms varies idiosyncratically across (sub)fields and even across individual researchers within the same subfield. We have formed an international group of experts representing various theoretical stances with the goal to homogenize the use of the terms that are most relevant to fundamental research on visual distraction in visual search. Our discussions revealed striking heterogeneity and we had to invest much time and effort to increase our mutual understanding of each other's use of central terms, which turned out to be strongly related to our respective theoretical positions. We present the outcomes of these discussions in a glossary and provide some context in several essays. Specifically, we explicate how central terms are used in the distraction literature and consensually sharpen their definitions in order to enable communication across theoretical standpoints. Where applicable, we also explain how the respective constructs can be measured. We believe that this novel type of adversarial collaboration can serve as a model for other fields of psychological research that strive to build a solid groundwork for theorizing and communicating by establishing a common language. For the field of visual distraction, the present paper should facilitate communication across theoretical standpoints and may serve as an introduction and reference text for newcomers.

Contingent capture by color is sensitive to categorical color perception

Contingent capture (CC) theory postulates that attention can only be captured by top-down matching stimuli. Although the contingent capture of attention is a well-known and thoroughly studied phenomenon, there is still no consensus on the characteristics of the top-down template which guides the search for colors. We tried to replicate the classical contingent capture effect on color (Experiment 1) and then added linguistic processing to this perceptual effect (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, attention was indeed captured by the cues of the same color as the target, while the cues of different colors were successfully ignored. In Experiment 2, the cue color was never identical to the target color but would either belong to the same linguistic category or not (i.e., linguistic matching and linguistic nonmatching cues). In both cases, cues were made to be equally perceptually distant from the target. Although, attention was captured by both cue types, the degree of capture was significantly higher for linguistic matching cues. Our research replicated the classic contingent capture effect but on color, and also demonstrated the effect of color categories in the search task. In short, we demonstrated the effect of color categories in the search task. Results show that the template for color search contains physical characteristics of color, as well as information about color category names.

A new technique for estimating the probability of attentional capture

Latency-based metrics of attentional capture are limited: They indicate whether or not capture occurred, but they do not indicate how often capture occurred. The present study introduces a new technique for estimating the probability of capture. In a spatial cueing paradigm, participants searched for a target letter defined by color while attempting to ignore salient cues that were drawn in either a relevant or irrelevant color. The results demonstrated the typical contingent capture effect: larger cue validity effects from relevant cues than irrelevant cues. Importantly, using a novel analytical approach, we were able to estimate the probability that the salient cue captured attention. This approach revealed a surprisingly low probability of attentional capture in the spatial cuing paradigm. Relevant cues are thought to be one of the strongest attractors of attention, yet they were estimated to capture attention on only about 30% of trials. This new metric provides an index of capture strength that can be meaningfully compared across different experimental contexts, which was not possible until now.

Attentional capture is modulated by stimulus saliency in visual search as evidenced by event-related potentials and alpha oscillations

This study used a typical four-item search display to investigate top-down control over attentional capture in an additional singleton paradigm. By manipulating target and distractor color and shape, stimulus saliency relative to the remaining items was systematically varied. One group of participants discriminated the side of a dot within a salient orange target (ST group) presented with green circles (fillers) and a green diamond distractor. A second group discriminated the side of the dot within a green diamond target presented with green circle fillers and a salient orange square distractor (SD group). Results showed faster reaction times and a shorter latency of the N2pc component in the event-related potential (ERP) to the more salient targets in the ST group. Both salient and less salient distractors elicited Pd components of equal amplitude. Behaviorally, no task interference was observed with the less salient distractor, indicating the prevention of attentional capture. However, reaction times were slower in the presence of the salient distractor, which conflicts with the hypothesis that the Pd reflects proactive distractor suppression. Contrary to recent proposals that elicitation of the Pd requires competitive interactions with a target, we found a greater Pd amplitude when the distractor was presented alone. Alpha-band amplitudes decreased during target processing (event-related desynchronization), but no significant amplitude enhancement was observed at electrodes contralateral to distractors regardless of their saliency. The results demonstrate independent neural mechanisms for target and distractor processing and support the view that top-down guidance of attention can be offset (counteracted) by relative stimulus saliency.

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.

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.

•

Distractor suppression is the ability to filter out irrelevant information.

•

At present, we know little about how the brain suppresses distraction.

•

We offer ten rules that are fundamental when investigating distractor suppression.

•

Following the rules will propel research and foster interaction between disciplines.

Spatial cueing effects do not always index attentional capture: evidence for a priority accumulation framework

The spatial cueing paradigm is a popular tool to investigate under what conditions irrelevant objects capture attention against the observer's intention. In this paradigm, finding better visual search performance when the target appears at the location of an irrelevant cue is taken to indicate that this cue summoned attention to its location, before the search display appeared. Here, we provide evidence challenging this canonical interpretation of spatial-cueing (or cue-validity) effects and supporting the priority accumulation framework (PAF). According to PAF, the cue can bias attention but such bias takes effect only when the relevant context for selection (the search display) appears: attentional priority accumulates over time at each location until the search context triggers selection of the location that has accumulated the highest priority. We used a spatial-cueing paradigm with abruptly onset cues and search displays varying in target-distractor similarity. We found that search performance on valid-cue trials deteriorates the more difficult the search (Experiment 1), and showed that this finding is explained by PAF but cannot be accommodated within the standard interpretation of spatial-cueing effects (Experiment 2). Finally, we assessed the priority accumulated at each location by using a combination of the spatial-cueing and dot-probe paradigms (Experiment 3). We showed that the similarity of the cued object to the target modulates probe detection performance, a finding that is at odds with the standard interpretation of cueing effects and supports PAF's predictions. We discuss the implications of the findings in resolving existing controversies on the determinants of attentional priority.