Rewarded visual items capture attention only in heterogeneous contexts

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.

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.

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.

Electrophysiological Evidence for Target Facilitation Without Distractor Suppression in Two-Stimulus Search Displays

This study used electrophysiological measures to investigate how attention is deployed to target and distractor stimuli during visual search using search displays with a small set-size. Participants viewed randomized sequences of two-item displays that consisted of either a target and a distractor (differing in color) or a pair of task-irrelevant filler stimuli having a third color, all presented in an ongoing stream of flickering gray circles. The allocation of attention was assessed by concurrent recordings of steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) elicited by the flickering displays and perturbations of the endogenous alpha rhythm following each type of display. The aim was to test a central prediction of the signal suppression hypothesis, namely that the processing of distractors will be proactively suppressed below the level of filler stimuli. Amplitude modulations of both the SSVEP and the lateralized alpha rhythm provided converging evidence against early proactive suppression of highly salient distractors. Instead, these electrophysiological measures were consistent with the view that in this type of two-stimulus search task there is an initial capture of attention by all color-change stimuli (targets, distractors, and fillers) followed by a further focusing of attention upon the target, with no evidence for suppression of the distractor.

Combined influences of strategy and selection history on attentional control

Visual attention is guided by top-down mechanisms and pre-stimulus task preparation, but also by selection history (i.e., the bias to prioritize previously attended items). Here we examine how these influences combine. Two groups of participants completed two intermingled tasks. One task involved categorization of a unique target; one group categorized the target based on color, and the other based on shape. The other task involved searching for a target defined by unique shape while ignoring a distractor defined by unique color. Our expectation was that the search task would be difficult for the color-categorization group because their categorization task required attentional resolution of color, but the search task required that they ignore color. In some experimental blocks, trials from the two tasks appeared predictably, giving the color-categorization group an opportunity to strategically prepare by switching between color-prioritizing and shape-prioritizing attentional templates. We looked to pre-stimulus oscillatory activity as a direct index of this preparation, and to reaction times and post-stimulus ERPs for markers of resultant change in attentional deployment. Results showed that preparation in the color-categorization group optimized attentional templates, such that these participants became less sensitive to the color distractor in the search task. But preparation was not sufficient to entirely negate the influence of selection history, and participants in the color-categorization group continued to show a propensity to attend to the color distractor. These results indicate that preparatory effort can be scaled to the anticipated attentional requirements, but attention is nevertheless considerably biased by selection history.

Local and global context repetitions in contextual cueing

In contextual cueing tasks, participants can use a repeating local context to learn to detect the target, yet most contextual cueing studies have relied on repeating global context properties. We examined whether observers can use local context repetitions in a similar manner as they use global context repetitions. In addition, we examined how reward-predicting context features modulate the use of local and global contexts. Participants searched through contexts in which either the entire context configuration or only a local context around the target repeated, intermixed with novel contexts. Half of the context items appeared in a color signaling either low or high reward. We found that local context repetitions led to comparable benefits in response times and fixation count as global context repetitions did. Surprisingly, reward magnitude did not affect performance in local nor in global contexts. The results suggest that a local chunk of distractors can be used for context learning and attention guidance in a similar manner as the global context configuration. We suggest that the proportion of repeated and novel context trials is crucial for context learning and that our combination of locally and globally repeating contexts provided an environment that facilitated learning in both context types because it allowed predicting the target location from the context in most of the trials.

Neurochemistry of Visual Attention

Visual attention is the cognitive process that mediates the selection of important information from the environment. This selection is usually controlled by bottom-up and top-down attentional biasing. Since for most humans vision is the dominant sense, visual attention is critically important for higher-order cognitive functions and related deficits are a core symptom of many neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders. Here, we summarize the importance and relative contributions of different neuromodulators and neurotransmitters to the neural mechanisms of top-down and bottom-up attentional control. We will not only review the roles of widely accepted neuromodulators, such as acetylcholine, dopamine and noradrenaline, but also the contributions of other modulatory substances. In doing so, we hope to shed some light on the current understanding of the role of neurochemistry in shaping neuron properties contributing to the allocation of attention in the visual field.

Reward expectation modulates N2pc for target selection: Electrophysiological evidence

In an electrophysiological experiment, we investigated the effect of reward expectation on the localized attentional interference effect using a cue-target paradigm, while event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded. A cue indicating the reward condition of each trial (incentive vs. non-incentive) was followed by the presentation of a search array containing two target items. Participants were asked to decide whether the two shape singletons (two triangles, two rectangles, or one triangle and one rectangle) among a set of circles were the same shape. Moreover, we manipulated the distance between the two targets to be adjacent to each other (Separation 1) or further apart (Separation 3 and Separation 5). Behavioral results revealed a larger reward facilitation effect for the larger target separation conditions. The N2pc component locked to the target display exhibited an interaction between reward expectation and the distance between the two targets. For non-incentive trials, the N2pc amplitude increased as the separation between the two targets increased; however, for incentive trials, the N2pc showed comparable amplitudes in the different target separation conditions. These results indicate that reward expectation regulated attentional focus to better resolve the competition between representation and selection of the two targets for acquiring possible reward outcomes.

Controlling the Flow of Distracting Information in Working Memory

Visual working memory (WM) must maintain relevant information, despite the constant influx of both relevant and irrelevant information. Attentional control mechanisms help determine which of this new information gets access to our capacity-limited WM system. Previous work has treated attentional control as a monolithic process-either distractors capture attention or they are suppressed. Here, we provide evidence that attentional capture may instead be broken down into at least two distinct subcomponent processes: (1) Spatial capture, which refers to when spatial attention shifts towards the location of irrelevant stimuli and (2) item-based capture, which refers to when item-based WM representations of irrelevant stimuli are formed. To dissociate these two subcomponent processes of attentional capture, we utilized a series of electroencephalography components that track WM maintenance (contralateral delay activity), suppression (distractor positivity), item individuation (N2pc), and spatial attention (lateralized alpha power). We show that new, relevant information (i.e., a task-relevant distractor) triggers both spatial and item-based capture. Irrelevant distractors, however, only trigger spatial capture from which ongoing WM representations can recover more easily. This fractionation of attentional capture into distinct subcomponent processes provides a refined framework for understanding how distracting stimuli affect attention and WM.

Stimulus-response learning and expected reward value enhance stimulus cognitive processing: An ERP study

Reward affects our attention to stimuli, prioritizing those that lead to high-value outcomes. Recently, it has been suggested that such reward-related cognitive prioritization might be associated with the process of learning new stimulus-response (S-R) associations, because both are acquired through extended reward training, and once established, they are hard to overcome. We used event-related potentials (ERP) to analyze the contribution of S-R links to the formation of reward-related cognitive prioritization during reinforcement learning. Reward-related cognitive prioritization was measured by comparing the ERP signals for stimuli predicting high-value and low-value outcomes. In addition, we compared a strong S-R link (same stimulus, same response), with a weak S-R link condition (same stimulus, two different responses). The participants' performance was more accurate and faster when the procedure allowed for establishing strong S-R links and for high-value outcomes. Furthermore, those stimuli associated with strong S-R links showed a larger P3 amplitude at parietal sites. Value effects (larger ERP activity for those stimuli predicting a high-value outcome) were obtained at parietal and occipital sites in the P3 time window. However, value effects did not benefit from strong S-R links in either the P1 or the P3 components. These results suggest that strong S-R learning is not necessary to develop reward-related modulations of ERP activity.

Neural mechanisms underlying distractor inhibition on the basis of feature and/or spatial expectations

A rapidly growing body of research indicates that inhibition of distracting information may not be under flexible, top-down control, but instead heavily relies on expectations derived from past experience about the likelihood of events. Yet, how expectations about distracting information influence distractor inhibition at the neural level remains unclear. To determine how expectations induced by distractor features and/or location regularities modulate distractor processing, we measured EEG while participants performed two variants of the additional singleton paradigm. Critically, in these different variants, target and distractor features either randomly swapped across trials, or were fixed, allowing for the development of distractor feature-based expectations. Moreover, the task was initially performed without any spatial regularity, after which a high probability distractor location was introduced. Our results show that both distractor feature- and location regularities contributed to distractor inhibition, as indicated by corresponding reductions in distractor costs during visual search and an earlier distractor-evoked Pd component. Yet, control analyses showed that while observers were sensitive to regularities across longer time scales, the observed effects to a large extent reflected intertrial repetition. Large individual differences further suggest a functional dissociation between early and late Pd components, with the former reflecting early sensory suppression related to intertrial priming and the latter reflecting suppression sensitive to expectations derived over a longer time scale. Also, counter to some previous findings, no increase in anticipatory alpha-band activity was observed over visual regions representing the expected distractor location, although this effect should be interpreted with caution as the effect of spatial statistical learning was also less pronounced than in other studies. Together, these findings suggest that intertrial priming and statistical learning may both contribute to distractor suppression and reveal the underlying neural mechanisms.

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.

Uncertainty modulates value-driven attentional capture

The majority of previous studies on the value modulation of attention have shown that the magnitude of value-driven attentional bias correlates with the strength of reward association. However, relatively little is known about how uncertainty affects value-based attentional bias. We investigated whether attentional capture by previously rewarded stimuli is modulated by the uncertainty of the learned value without the influence of the strength of reward association. Participants were instructed to identify the line orientation in the target color circle. Importantly, each target color was associated with a different level of uncertainty by tuning the variation in reward delivery (Experiment 1) or reward magnitude (Experiment 2). Attentional interference for uncertainty-related distractors was greater than that for certainty distractors in Experiments 1 and 2. In addition, uncertainty-induced attentional bias disappeared earlier than attentional bias for certainty. The study demonstrated that uncertainty modulates value-based attentional capture in terms of strength and persistence, even when the effect of expected value remains constant.

Differential Deployment of Visual Attention During Interactive Approach and Avoidance Behavior

The ability to coordinate approach and avoidance actions in dynamic environments represents the boundary between extinction and the continued survival of many animal species. It is therefore crucial that sensory systems allocate limited attentional resources to the most relevant information to facilitate planning and execution of appropriate actions. Prominent theories of how attention regulates visual processing focus on the distinction between behaviorally relevant and irrelevant visual inputs. To date, however, no study has directly compared the deployment of attention to visual inputs relevant for approach and avoidance behaviors, which naturally occur in dynamic, interactive environments. In two experiments, we combined electroencephalography, frequency tagging, and eye gaze measures to investigate whether the deployment of visual selective attention differs for items relevant for approach and avoidance actions. Participants maneuvered a cursor to approach and avoid contact with moving items in a continuous interactive task. The results indicated that while the approach and avoidance tasks recruited equivalent attentional resources overall, attentional biases were directed toward task-relevant items during approach, and away from task-relevant items during avoidance. We conclude that the deployment of visual attention is guided not only by relevance to a behavioral goal, but also by the nature of that goal.

Motivated suppression of value- and threat-modulated attentional capture

Attention prioritizes stimuli previously associated with reward or punishment. The present study examined whether this attentional bias, widely considered to be involuntary and automatic, could be suppressed with sufficient motivation. Participants performed visual search for a shape-defined target. One color-singleton distractor predicted the possibility of receiving a reward and another an electric shock, with each outcome occurring infrequently. Participants were informed that the likelihood to earn a reward or avert punishment depended on fast and accurate performance, thus providing strong motivation to resist distraction by reward- and shock-related stimuli. Results revealed a reduction in the magnitude of attentional capture by reward- and threat-associated distractors, relative to neutral distractors, that persisted into extinction. In a second experiment, we replicated the suppression of value-modulated attentional capture in the absence of the shock condition, thus confirming that the suppression did not result from the presence of threat. Finally, in a third experiment, we replicated the typical pattern of attentional capture by reward cues using a more conventional procedure in which the motivation to suppress valent stimuli was low (the likelihood to be rewarded was high and not contingent on fast performance). This study demonstrates that signals for reward and threat can be actively suppressed with sufficient motivation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Capture by Context Elements, Not Attentional Suppression of Distractors, Explains the PD with Small Search Displays

Top–down control of attention allows us to resist attentional capture by salient stimuli that are irrelevant to our current goals. Recently, it was proposed that attentional suppression of salient distractors contributes to top–down control by biasing attention away from the distractor. With small search displays, attentional suppression of salient distractors may even result in reduced RTs on distractor-present trials. In support of attentional suppression, electrophysiological measures revealed a positivity between 200 and 300 msec contralateral to the distractor, which has been referred to as distractor positivity (PD). We reexamined distractor benefits with small search displays and found that the positivity to the distractor was followed by a negativity to the distractor. The negativity, referred to as N2pc, is considered an index of attentional selection of the contralateral element. Thus, attentional suppression of the distractor (PD) preceded attentional capture (N2pc) by the distractor, which is at odds with the idea that attentional suppression avoids attentional capture by the distractor. Instead, we suggest that the initial “PD” is not a positivity to the distractor but rather a negativity (N2pc) to the contralateral context element, suggesting that, initially, the context captured attention. Subsequently, the distractor was selected because, paradoxically, participants searched all lateral target positions (even when irrelevant) before they examined the vertical positions. Consistent with this idea, search times were shorter for lateral than vertical targets. In summary, the early voltage difference in small search displays is unrelated to distractor suppression but may reflect capture by the context.

Temporal attention boosts perceptual effects of spatial attention and feature-based attention

Temporal attention, that is, the process of anticipating the occurrence of a stimulus at a given time point, has been shown to improve perceptual processing of visual stimuli. In the present study, we investigated whether and how temporal attention interacts with spatial attention and feature-based attention in visual selection. To monitor the influence of the three different attention dimensions on perceptual processing, we measured event-related potentials (ERPs). Our participants performed a visual search task, in which a colored singleton was presented amongst homogenous distractors. We manipulated spatial and feature-based attention by requiring participants to respond only to target singletons in a particular color and at a to-be-attended spatial location. We manipulated temporal attention by means of an explicit temporal cue that announced either validly or invalidly the occurrence of the search display. We obtained early ERP effects of spatial attention and feature-based attention at the validly cued but not at the invalidly cued time point. Taken together, our results suggest that temporal attention boosts early effects of spatial and feature-based attention.

The Bright and Dark Sides of Performance-Dependent Monetary Rewards: Evidence From Visual Perception Tasks

Studies have shown that performance-dependent monetary rewards facilitate visual perception. However, no study has examined whether such a positive effect is limited to the rewarded task or may be generalized to other tasks. In the current study, two groups of people were asked to perform two visual perception tasks, one being a reward-relevant task and the other being a reward-irrelevant task. For the reward-relevant task, the experimental group received performance-dependent monetary rewards, whereas the control group did not. For the reward-irrelevant task, both groups were not rewarded. The two tasks were randomly intermixed trial by trial (Experiment 1) or presented block by block (Experiment 2) or session by session (Experiments 3a, 3b, and 3c). Results showed that performance-dependent monetary rewards improved participants' performance on the relevant task in all experiments and impaired their performance on the irrelevant task in Experiments 2, 3a, 3b, and 3c. These results suggested that monetary rewards might incur a cost on reward-irrelevant tasks. Finally, the benefit of monetary rewards disappeared when they were no longer provided during the final session. This is the first study that reveals both the bright and dark sides of the performance-dependent monetary rewards in visual perception.

Failed Suppression of Salient Stimuli Precedes Behavioral Errors

Our visual system is constantly confronted with more information than it can process. To deal with the limited capacity, attention allows us to enhance relevant information and suppress irrelevant information. Particularly, the suppression of salient irrelevant stimuli has shown to be important as it prevents attention to be captured and thus attentional resources to be wasted. This study aimed at directly connecting failures to suppress distraction with a neural marker of suppression, the distractor positivity (Pd). We measured participants' EEG signal while they performed a visual search task in which they had to report a digit inside a shape target while ignoring distractors, one of which could be a salient color singleton. Reports of target digits served as a behavioral index of enhancement, and reports of color distractor digits served as a behavioral index of failed suppression, each measured against reports of neutral distractor digits serving as a baseline. Participants reported the target identity more often than any distractor identity. The singleton identity was reported least often, suggesting suppression of the singleton below baseline. Suppression of salient stimuli was absent in the beginning and then increased throughout the experiment. When the singleton identity was reported, the Pd was observed in a later time window, suggesting that behavioral errors were preceded by failed suppression. Our results provide evidence for the signal suppression hypothesis that states salient items have to be actively suppressed to avoid attentional capture. Our results also provide direct evidence that the Pd is reflecting such active suppression.

Cooperation moderates the impact of effort on reward valuation

Effort is valuable, but researchers have different opinions on whether effort can reduce or increase the valuation of rewards. The effect of cooperation on reward valuation also remains unclear. In this study, we conducted two experiments to examine the effect of effort on reward valuation (Experiment 1) and whether this effect can be influenced by cooperation (Experiment 2), using electroencephalogram (EEG) technology. We found that when participants worked alone, they generated a larger feedback-related negativity (FRN) amplitude for losing rewards than for gaining rewards, with more effort resulting in larger FRN amplitudes for losing rewards. However, when participants worked together with a partner, there was no significant difference between the amplitude for gaining rewards and that for losing rewards during low-effort tasks. Nevertheless, for high-effort tasks, the FRN amplitude for losing rewards was significantly larger than that for gaining rewards. Moreover, in both experiments, we found larger N1 amplitudes for gaining rewards than for losing rewards. Our ERP results suggest that in the early stage of processing, people pay extra attention to rewards, after that the effort level influences their reward valuation. In addition, cooperation regulates the reduced valuation of losing rewards only when people invest low effort.

Reward expectation facilitates context learning and attentional guidance in visual search

Modulations of visual attention due to expectation of reward were frequently reported in recent years. Recent studies revealed that reward can modulate the implicit learning of repeated context configurations (e.g., Tseng & Lleras, 2013). We investigated the influence of reward expectations on context learning by associating colors to different reward magnitudes. Participants searched through contexts consisting of spatially distributed L-shaped distractors and a T-shaped target, with half of these objects appearing in a color associated with low, medium, or high reward. Half of these context configurations were repeatedly presented in every experimental block, whereas the other half was generated newly for every trial. Results showed an earlier and more pronounced contextual cueing effect in contexts associated with high reward compared with low reward contexts. This was visible as faster decline of response times to targets in repeated contexts associated with high reward compared with repeated low reward and novel contexts, and was reflected in the eye movement pattern as shorter distance of the first fixation to the target location. These results suggest that expectation of high reward magnitude facilitates subsequent learning of repeated context configurations. High reward also increases the efficiency of attention guidance toward the target location.

Neural Evidence for the Contribution of Active Suppression During Working Memory Filtering

In order to efficiently process incoming visual information, selective attention acts as a filter that enhances relevant and suppresses irrelevant information. In this study, we used an event-related potential (ERP) approach with systematic lateralization to investigate enhancement and suppression during encoding of information into visual working memory (WM) separately. We used a change detection task in which observers had to memorize some items while ignoring other items. We found that the to-be-ignored items elicited a PD component in the ERP, suggesting that irrelevant information is actively suppressed from WM. The PD amplitude increased with distractor load and decreased with the ability to group distractors according to Gestalt principles. This suggests that the PD can be used as an indicator of how efficiently items can be suppressed from entering WM. Furthermore, while lateral memory-targets elicited a "traditional" CDA (starting ~300 ms), lateral memory-distractors elicited a sustained positivity contralateral to memory-distractors (CDAp, starting ~400 ms). In sum the results suggest that inhibition of irrelevant information is an important factor for efficient WM and is reflected in spontaneous (PD) and sustained suppression (CDAp).

Dissociable neural mechanisms underlie value-driven and selection-driven attentional capture

Stimuli associated with reward acquire the ability to automatically capture attention. It is also the case that, with sufficient training, former targets can acquire the ability to capture attention in the absence of extrinsic rewards. It remains unclear whether these two experience-dependent attentional biases share a common underlying mechanism. The present study examined the influence of selection history on attentional capture, and compared its neural correlates with those of value-driven attentional capture reported in Anderson et al. (2014a). Participants completed a four-day training in visual search for a specific colour target. In a subsequent test phase, they performed visual search for a shape-defined target in which colour was task-irrelevant. Response times were slower when a former target-colour distractor was present than when it was absent, replicating attentional capture by unrewarded former targets. Neuroimaging results revealed preferential activation by a former target-colour distractor in sensory areas. A more right lateralised pattern of activation was observed, compared to attentional capture by reward cues. No distractor-evoked activity was found in the caudate tail. These results imply that attentional capture by selection history is primarily driven by plasticity in sensory areas, and that reward history and selection history influence attention via dissociable underlying mechanisms.

Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention

Visual attention enables us to selectively prioritize or suppress information in the environment. Prominent models concerned with the control of visual attention differentiate between goal-directed, top-down and stimulus-driven, bottom-up control, with the former determined by current selection goals and the latter determined by physical salience. In the current review, we discuss recent studies that demonstrate that attentional selection does not need to be the result of top-down or bottom-up processing but, instead, is often driven by lingering biases due to the "history" of former attention deployments. This review mainly focuses on reward-based history effects; yet other types of history effects such as (intertrial) priming, statistical learning and affective conditioning are also discussed. We argue that evidence from behavioral, eye-movement and neuroimaging studies supports the idea that selection history modulates the topographical landscape of spatial "priority" maps, such that attention is biased toward locations having the highest activation on this map.

The Role of Inhibition in Avoiding Distraction by Salient Stimuli

Researchers have long debated whether salient stimuli can involuntarily 'capture' visual attention. We review here evidence for a recently discovered inhibitory mechanism that may help to resolve this debate. This evidence suggests that salient stimuli naturally attempt to capture attention, but capture can be avoided if the salient stimulus is suppressed before it captures attention. Importantly, the suppression process can be more or less effective as a result of changing task demands or lapses in cognitive control. Converging evidence for the existence of this suppression mechanism comes from multiple sources, including psychophysics, eye-tracking, and event-related potentials (ERPs). We conclude that the evidence for suppression is strong, but future research will need to explore the nature and limits of this mechanism.

Changes of Attention during Value-Based Reversal Learning Are Tracked by N2pc and Feedback-Related Negativity

Previously learned reward values can have a pronounced impact, behaviorally and neurophysiologically, on the allocation of selective attention. All else constant, stimuli previously associated with a high value gain stronger attentional prioritization than stimuli previously associated with a low value. The N2pc, an ERP component indicative of attentional target selection, has been shown to reflect aspects of this prioritization, by changes of mean amplitudes closely corresponding to selective enhancement of high value target processing and suppression of high value distractor processing. What has remained unclear so far is whether the N2pc also reflects the flexible and repeated behavioral adjustments needed in a volatile task environment, in which the values of stimuli are reversed often and unannounced. Using a value-based reversal learning task, we found evidence that the N2pc amplitude flexibly and reversibly tracks value-based choices during the learning of reward associated stimulus colors. Specifically, successful learning of current value-contingencies was associated with reduced N2pc amplitudes, and this effect was more apparent for distractor processing, compared with target processing. In addition, following a value reversal the feedback related negativity(FRN), an ERP component that reflects feedback processing, was amplified and co-occurred with increased N2pc amplitudes in trials following low-value feedback. Importantly, participants that showed the greatest adjustment in N2pc amplitudes based on feedback were also the most efficient learners. These results allow further insight into how changes in attentional prioritization in an uncertain and volatile environment support flexible adjustments of behavior.

The necessity to choose causes reward-related anticipatory biasing: Parieto-occipital alpha-band oscillations reveal suppression of low-value targets

Positive outcome of actions can be maximized by choosing the option with the highest reward. For saccades, it has recently been suggested that the necessity to choose is, in fact, an important factor mediating reward effects: latencies to single low-reward targets increased with an increasing proportion of interleaved choice-trials, in which participants were free to choose between two targets to obtain either a high or low reward. Here, we replicate this finding for manual responses, demonstrating that this effect of choice is a more general, effector-independent phenomenon. Oscillatory activity in the alpha and beta band in the preparatory period preceding target onset was analysed for a parieto-occipital and a centrolateral region of interest to identify an anticipatory neural biasing mechanism related to visuospatial attention or motor preparation. When the proportion of interleaved choices was high, an increase in lateralized posterior alpha power indicated that the hemifield associated with a low reward was suppressed in preparation for reward-maximizing target selection. The larger the individual increase in lateralized alpha power, the slower the reaction times to low-reward targets. At a broader level, these findings support the notion that reward only affects responses when behaviour can be optimized to maximize positive outcome.

Mixed signals: The effect of conflicting reward- and goal-driven biases on selective attention

Attentional selection depends on the interaction between exogenous (stimulus-driven), endogenous (goal-driven), and selection history (experience-driven) factors. While endogenous and exogenous biases have been widely investigated, less is known about their interplay with value-driven attention. The present study investigated the interaction between reward-history and goal-driven biases on perceptual sensitivity (d') and response time (RT) in a modified cueing paradigm presenting two coloured cues, followed by sinusoidal gratings. Participants responded to the orientation of one of these gratings. In Experiment 1, one cue signalled reward availability but was otherwise task irrelevant. In Experiment 2, the same cue signalled reward, and indicated the target's most likely location at the opposite side of the display. This design introduced a conflict between reward-driven biases attracting attention and goal-driven biases directing it away. Attentional effects were examined comparing trials in which cue and target appeared at the same versus opposite locations. Two interstimulus interval (ISI) levels were used to probe the time course of attentional effects. Experiment 1 showed performance benefits at the location of the reward-signalling cue and costs at the opposite for both ISIs, indicating value-driven capture. Experiment 2 showed performance benefits only for the long ISI when the target was at the opposite to the reward-associated cue. At the short ISI, only performance costs were observed. These results reveal the time course of these biases, indicating that reward-driven effects influence attention early but can be overcome later by goal-driven control. This suggests that reward-driven biases are integrated as attentional priorities, just as exogenous and endogenous factors.

What is abnormal about addiction-related attentional biases?

BACKGROUND

The phenotype of addiction includes prominent attentional biases for drug cues, which play a role in motivating drug-seeking behavior and contribute to relapse. In a separate line of research, arbitrary stimuli have been shown to automatically capture attention when previously associated with reward in non-clinical samples.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Here, I argue that these two attentional biases reflect the same cognitive process. I outline five characteristics that exemplify attentional biases for drug cues: resistant to conflicting goals, robust to extinction, linked to dorsal striatal dopamine and to biases in approach behavior, and can distinguish between individuals with and without a history of drug dependence. I then go on to describe how attentional biases for arbitrary reward-associated stimuli share all of these features, and conclude by arguing that the attentional components of addiction reflect a normal cognitive process that promotes reward-seeking behavior.