Attentional capture: An ameliorable side-effect of searching for salient targets

Tracking the Misallocation and Reallocation of Spatial Attention toward Auditory Stimuli

Completely ignoring a salient distractor presented concurrently with a target is difficult, and sometimes attention is involuntarily attracted to the distractor's location (attentional capture). Employing the N2ac component as a marker of attention allocation toward sounds, in this study we investigate the spatiotemporal dynamics of auditory attention across two experiments. Human participants (male and female) performed an auditory search task, where the target was accompanied by a distractor in two-third of the trials. For a distractor more salient than the target (Experiment 1), we observe not only a distractor N2ac (indicating attentional capture) but the full chain of attentional dynamics implied by the notion of attentional capture, namely, (1) the distractor captures attention before the target is attended, (2) allocation of attention to the target is delayed by distractor presence, and (3) the target is attended after the distractor. Conversely, for a distractor less salient than the target (Experiment 2), although responses were delayed, no attentional capture was observed. Together, these findings reveal two types of spatial attentional dynamics in the auditory modality (distraction with and without attentional capture).

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.

On the role of top-down and bottom-up guidance in conjunction search: Singleton interference revisited

The current study reassessed the potential of salient singleton distractors to interfere in conjunction search. Experiment 1 investigated conjunctions of colour and orientation, using densely packed arrays that produced highly efficient search. The results demonstrated clear interference effects of singleton distractors in task-relevant dimensions colour and orientation, but no interference from those in a task-irrelevant dimension (motion). Goals exerted an influence in constraining this interference such that the singleton interference along one dimension was modulated by target relevance along the other task relevant dimension. Colour singleton interference was much stronger when the singleton shared the target orientation, and orientation interference was much stronger when the orientation singleton shared the target colour. Experiments 2 and 3 examined singleton-distractor interference in feature search. The results showed strong interference particularly from task-relevant dimensions but a reduced role for top-down, feature-based modulation of singleton interference, compared with conjunction search. The results are consistent with a model of conjunction search based on core elements of the guided search and dimension weighting approaches, whereby weighted dimensional feature contrast signals are combined with top-down feature guidance signals in a feature-independent map that serves to guide search.

Target Salience and Search Modes: A Commentary on Theeuwes (2023)

In a healthy scientific community, theories influence each other and promising ideas are embraced by competing theoretical camps. We are therefore pleased that Theeuwes (2023) now agrees with core points of our theoretical position (Liesefeld et al., 2021; Liesefeld & Müller, 2020), most notably, the central role target salience plays for interference by salient distractors and the conditions that facilitate clump scanning. The present commentary traces the development of Theeuwes' theorizing and carves out remaining discrepancies, most notably the conjecture of two qualitatively distinct search modes. Such a dichotomy is embraced by us, but decidedly rejected by Theeuwes. Accordingly, we selectively review some evidence in favor of search modes that appear crucial to the current debate.

6- to 10-year-old children do not show race-based orienting biases to faces during an online attention capture task

Research has established that frequency of exposure to own- and other-race faces shapes the development of face processing biases characterized by enhanced attention to and recognition of more familiar own-race faces, that is, the other-race effect (ORE). The ORE is first evident during infancy based on differences in looking to own- versus other-race faces and is later assessed based on recognition memory task performance during childhood and adulthood. Using these measures, researchers have found that race-based face processing biases initially develop during infancy but remain sensitive to experiences with own- and other-race faces through childhood. In contrast, limited work suggests that infants' attention orienting may be less affected by frequency of exposure to own- and other-race faces. However, the plasticity of race-based face processing biases during childhood suggests that biased orienting to own-race faces may develop at later ages following continued exposure to these faces. We addressed this question by examining 6- to 10-year-old children's attention capture by own- and other-race faces during an online task. Children searched for a target among multiple distractors. During some trials, either an own- or other-race face appeared as one of the distractors. Children showed similar target detection performance (omission errors, accuracy, and response times) regardless of whether an own- or other-race face appeared as a distractor. These results differ from research demonstrating race-based biases in attention holding and recognition memory but converge with previous infant research suggesting that attention orienting might not be as strongly affected by frequency of exposure to race-based information during development.

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.

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.

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.