Attentional sets influence perceptual load effects, but not dilution effects

Selection history modulates the limit of visual awareness in color perception

Among studies on the limit of conscious representation of color at a given instant, some have shown evidence of momentary awareness of only a single color, while others have not, leading to uncertainty about the factors that influence the limit. In two experiments, we explored the role of selection history, or recent experience with a trial, which is known to influence the representations of task stimuli and responses. Two color patches were briefly displayed either simultaneously or sequentially. In Experiment 1, we presented the two types of trials either in separate blocks or in interleaved couplets. In the former case, participants could deploy optimal attentional control setting in response to different types of trials with little cost by using recent experience with a preceding trial and prior knowledge. In the latter case, reconfiguring attentional control setting after each trial would be costly. In Experiment 2, we mixed the two types of trials randomly within a block during testing, but re-grouped them in data analyses such that the same type of trials was either repeated or not repeated. The results show that accuracy was comparable between the simultaneous and sequential trials in the block condition in Experiment 1 and in the repeat condition in Experiment 2, suggesting that two colors were perceived at a time. These results indicate that selection history plays an important role in the limit of visual awareness in color perception and that the finding of single-color perception reported in previous research might not be a general phenomenon.

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.

Is Attentional Resource Allocation Across Sensory Modalities Task-Dependent?

Human information processing is limited by attentional resources. That is, via attentional mechanisms, humans select a limited amount of sensory input to process while other sensory input is neglected. In multisensory research, a matter of ongoing debate is whether there are distinct pools of attentional resources for each sensory modality or whether attentional resources are shared across sensory modalities. Recent studies have suggested that attentional resource allocation across sensory modalities is in part task-dependent. That is, the recruitment of attentional resources across the sensory modalities depends on whether processing involves object-based attention (e.g., the discrimination of stimulus attributes) or spatial attention (e.g., the localization of stimuli). In the present paper, we review findings in multisensory research related to this view. For the visual and auditory sensory modalities, findings suggest that distinct resources are recruited when humans perform object-based attention tasks, whereas for the visual and tactile sensory modalities, partially shared resources are recruited. If object-based attention tasks are time-critical, shared resources are recruited across the sensory modalities. When humans perform an object-based attention task in combination with a spatial attention task, partly shared resources are recruited across the sensory modalities as well. Conversely, for spatial attention tasks, attentional processing does consistently involve shared attentional resources for the sensory modalities. Generally, findings suggest that the attentional system flexibly allocates attentional resources depending on task demands. We propose that such flexibility reflects a large-scale optimization strategy that minimizes the brain’s costly resource expenditures and simultaneously maximizes capability to process currently relevant information.

Evaluative pressure overcomes perceptual load effects

Perceptual load has been found to be a powerful bottom-up determinant of distractibility, with high perceptual load preventing distraction by any irrelevant information. However, when under evaluative pressure, individuals exert top-down attentional control by giving greater weight to task-relevant features, making them more distractible from task-relevant distractors. One study tested whether the top-down modulation of attention under evaluative pressure overcomes the beneficial bottom-up effect of high perceptual load on distraction. Using a response-competition task, we replicated previous findings that high levels of perceptual load suppress task-relevant distractor response interference, but only for participants in a control condition. Participants under evaluative pressure (i.e., who believed their intelligence was assessed) showed interference from task-relevant distractor at all levels of perceptual load. This research challenges the assumptions of the perceptual load theory and sheds light on a neglected determinant of distractibility: the self-relevance of the performance situation in which attentional control is solicited.

Accurate expectancies diminish perceptual distraction during visual search

The load theory of visual attention proposes that efficient selective perceptual processing of task-relevant information during search is determined automatically by the perceptual demands of the display. If the perceptual demands required to process task-relevant information are not enough to consume all available capacity, then the remaining capacity automatically and exhaustively “spills-over” to task-irrelevant information. The spill-over of perceptual processing capacity increases the likelihood that task-irrelevant information will impair performance. In two visual search experiments, we tested the automaticity of the allocation of perceptual processing resources by measuring the extent to which the processing of task-irrelevant distracting stimuli was modulated by both perceptual load and top-down expectations using behavior, functional magnetic resonance imaging, and electrophysiology. Expectations were generated using a trial-by-trial cue that provided information about the likely load of the upcoming visual search task. When the cues were valid, behavioral interference was eliminated and the influence of load on frontoparietal and visual cortical responses was attenuated relative to when the cues were invalid. In conditions in which task-irrelevant information interfered with performance and modulated visual activity, individual differences in mean blood oxygenation level dependent responses measured from the left intraparietal sulcus were negatively correlated with individual differences in the severity of distraction. These results are consistent with the interpretation that a top-down biasing mechanism interacts with perceptual load to support filtering of task-irrelevant information.

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.

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.