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

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.

Social processing modulates the initial allocation of attention towards angry faces: evidence from the N2pc component

Previous research has shown that attentional bias towards angry faces is moderated by the activation of a social processing mode. More specifically, reliable cueing effects for angry face cues in the dot-probe task only occurred when participants performed a task that required social processing of the target stimuli. However, cueing effects are a rather distal measure of covert shifts in spatial attention. Thus, it remains unclear whether the social processing mode modulates initial allocation of attention to or attentional disengagement from angry faces. In the present study, we used the N2pc, an event-related potential component, as an index of attentional shifts towards angry faces. Participants performed a dot-probe task with two different target conditions while the electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded. In the social target condition, target stimuli were socially meaningful (schematic faces), and in the non-social target condition, they were meaningless (scrambled schematic faces). The amplitude of the N2pc component elicited by angry face cues was significantly larger in the social target condition than in the non-social target condition. This pattern also occurred for behavioural cueing effects. These results suggest that the activation of a social processing mode due to current task demands affects the initial allocation of attention towards angry faces.

On preventing capture: Does greater salience cause greater suppression?

It has been proposed that salient objects have high potential to disrupt target performance, and so people learn to proactively suppress them, thereby preventing these salient distractors from capturing attention in the future. Consistent with this hypothesis, Gaspar et al. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(13), 3693-3698, 2016) reported that the PD (believed to index suppression) was larger for high-salient color distractors than for low-salient color distractors. The present study looked for converging evidence that salience triggers suppression using established behavior measures of suppression. Following Gaspar et al., our participants searched for a yellow target circle among nine background circles, which sometimes included one circle with a unique color. The distractor was either high or low in salience with respect to the background circles. The question was whether the high-salient color would be proactively suppressed more strongly than the low-salient color. This was assessed using the capture-probe paradigm. On 33% of trials, probe letters appeared inside colored circles and participants were to report those letters. If high-salient colors are more strongly suppressed, then probe recall accuracy should be lower at locations with the high-salient color than those with the low-salient color. Experiment 1 found no such effect. A similar finding was observed in Experiment 2 after addressing possible floor effects. These findings suggest that proactive suppression is not caused by salience. We propose that the PD reflects not only proactive suppression but also reactive suppression.

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.

Suppressive Control of Incentive Salience in Real-World Human Vision

Reward-related activity in the dopaminergic midbrain is thought to guide animal behavior, in part by boosting the perceptual and attentional processing of reward-predictive environmental stimuli. In line with this incentive salience hypothesis, studies of human visual search have shown that simple synthetic stimuli, such as lines, shapes, or Gabor patches, capture attention to their location when they are characterized by reward-associated visual features, such as color. In the real world, however, we commonly search for members of a category of visually heterogeneous objects, such as people, cars, or trees, where category examples do not share low-level features. Is attention captured to examples of a reward-associated real-world object category? Here, we have human participants search for targets in photographs of city and landscapes that contain task-irrelevant examples of a reward-associated category. We use the temporal precision of EEG machine learning and ERPs to show that these distractors acquire incentive salience and draw attention, but do not capture it. Instead, we find evidence of rapid, stimulus-triggered attentional suppression, such that the neural encoding of these objects is degraded relative to neutral objects. Humans appear able to suppress the incentive salience of reward-associated objects when they know these objects will be irrelevant, supporting the rapid deployment of attention to other objects that might be more useful. Incentive salience is thought to underlie key behaviors in eating disorders and addiction, among other conditions, and the kind of suppression identified here likely plays a role in mediating the attentional biases that emerge in these circumstances.Significance Statement Like other animals, humans are prone to notice and interact with environmental objects that have proven rewarding in earlier experience. However, it is common that such objects have no immediate strategic use and are therefore distracting. Do these reward-associated real-world objects capture our attention, despite our strategic efforts otherwise? Or are we able to strategically control the impulse to notice them? Here we use machine learning classification of human electrical brain activity to show that we can establish strategic control over the salience of naturalistic reward-associated objects. These objects draw our attention, but do not necessarily capture it, and this kind of control may play an important role in mediating conditions like eating disorder and addiction.

Tuning to non-veridical features in attention and perceptual decision-making: An EEG study

When searching for a lost item, we tune attention to the known properties of the object. Previously, it was believed that attention is tuned to the veridical attributes of the search target (e.g., orange), or an attribute that is slightly shifted away from irrelevant features towards a value that can more optimally distinguish the target from the distractors (e.g., red-orange; optimal tuning). However, recent studies showed that attention is often tuned to the relative feature of the search target (e.g., redder), so that all items that match the relative features of the target equally attract attention (e.g., all redder items; relational account). Optimal tuning was shown to occur only at a later stage of identifying the target. However, the evidence for this division mainly relied on eye tracking studies that assessed the first eye movements. The present study tested whether this division can also be observed when the task is completed with covert attention and without moving the eyes. We used the N2pc in the EEG of participants to assess covert attention, and found comparable results: Attention was initially tuned to the relative colour of the target, as shown by a significantly larger N2pc to relatively matching distractors than a target-coloured distractor. However, in the response accuracies, a slightly shifted, "optimal" distractor interfered most strongly with target identification. These results confirm that early (covert) attention is tuned to the relative properties of an item, in line with the relational account, while later decision-making processes may be biased to optimal features.

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.

Hierarchy of Intra- and Cross-modal Redundancy Gains in Visuo-tactile Search: Evidence from the Posterior Contralateral Negativity

Redundant combination of target features from separable dimensions can expedite visual search. The dimension-weighting account explains these "redundancy gains" by assuming that the attention-guiding priority map integrates the feature-contrast signals generated by targets within the respective dimensions. The present study investigated whether this hierarchical architecture is sufficient to explain the gains accruing from redundant targets defined by features in different modalities, or whether an additional level of modality-specific priority coding is necessary, as postulated by the modality-weighting account (MWA). To address this, we had observers perform a visuo-tactile search task in which targets popped out by a visual feature (color or shape) or a tactile feature (vibro-tactile frequency) as well as any combination of these features. The RT gains turned out larger for visuo-tactile versus visual redundant targets, as predicted by the MWA. In addition, we analyzed two lateralized event-related EEG components: the posterior (PCN) and central (CCN) contralateral negativities, which are associated with visual and tactile attentional selection, respectively. The CCN proved to be a stable somatosensory component, unaffected by cross-modal redundancies. In contrast, the PCN was sensitive to cross-modal redundancies, evidenced by earlier onsets and higher amplitudes, which could not be explained by linear superposition of the earlier CCN onto the later PCN. Moreover, linear mixed-effect modeling of the PCN amplitude and timing parameters accounted for approximately 25% of the behavioral RT variance. Together, these behavioral and PCN effects support the hierarchy of priority-signal computation assumed by the MWA.

Saliency affects attentional capture and suppression of abrupt-onset and color singleton distractors: Evidence from event-related potential studies

Attention is the process of selecting relevant information and suppressing irrelevant information. However, it is still controversial whether attentional capture by salient but task-irrelevant stimuli operates in a bottom-up fashion (stimulus-driven theory) or a top-down fashion (goal-driven theory) or if even salient distractors can be suppressed before capturing attention (signal suppression theory). In the present study, we investigated how saliency affects attentional capture (indexed by N2-posterior-contralateral [N2pc]) and suppression (indexed by distractor positivity [P_D ]) of abrupt-onset and color singleton distractors in a visual search task. Experiment 1 showed that an abrupt-onset distractor elicited both N2pc and P_D , while a color singleton distractor elicited only P_D . Moreover, the abrupt-onset distractor elicited a larger N2pc and a larger P_D relative to the color singleton distractor. In addition, both distractors elicited an early positive component, the positivity posterior contralateral (Ppc), which was also larger for abrupt onsets than for color singletons. Experiment 2 further demonstrated that when both the abrupt onset and color singleton were designed as targets, and thus required no attentional suppression, Ppc was elicited, but P_D was not. This corroborated the finding in Experiment 1 that the later P_D , not the early Ppc, reflected attentional suppression. Therefore, a more salient distractor demonstrates stronger early perceptual processing, can capture attention better and needs more attentional resources to be suppressed later. Based on these results, a three-stage hypothesis is proposed, in which the saliency of a distractor modulates processing at early perception, attentional capture, and suppression stages.

Irrelevant sights and sounds require spatial suppression: ERP evidence

Both real-world experience and behavioral laboratory research suggest that entirely irrelevant stimuli (distractors) can interfere with a primary task. However, it is as yet unknown whether such interference reflects competition for spatial attention - indeed, prominent theories of attention predict that this should not be the case. Whilst electrophysiological indices of spatial capture and spatial suppression have been well-investigated, experiments have primarily utilized distractors which share a degree of task-relevance with targets, and are limited to the visual domain. The present research measured behavioral and ERP responses to test the ability of salient yet entirely task-irrelevant visual and auditory distractors to compete for spatial attention during a visual task, while also testing for potentially enhanced competition from multisensory distractors. Participants completed a central letter search task, while ignoring lateralized visual (e.g., image of a dog), auditory (e.g., barking), or multisensory (e.g., image + barking) distractors. Results showed that visual and multisensory distractors elicited a P_D component indicative of active lateralized suppression. We also establish for the first time an auditory analog of the P_D component, the P_AD , elicited by auditory and multisensory distractors. Interestingly, there was no evidence to suggest enhanced ability of multisensory distractors to compete for attentional selection, despite previous proposals of a "special" saliency status for such items. Our findings hence suggest that irrelevant multisensory and unisensory distractors are similarly capable of eliciting a spatial "attend-to-me" signal - a precursor of spatial attentional capture - but at least in the present data set did not elicit full spatial attentional capture.

Difficulty suppressing visual distraction while dual tasking

Human beings must often perform multiple tasks concurrently or in rapid succession. Laboratory research has revealed striking limitations in the ability to dual task by asking participants to identify two target objects that are inserted into a rapid stream of irrelevant items. Under a variety of conditions, identification of the second target (T2) is impaired for a short period of time following presentation of the first target (T1). Several theories have been developed to account for this "attentional blink" (AB), but none makes a specific prediction about how processing of T1 might impact an observer's ability to ignore a salient distractor that accompanies T2. Using event-related potentials (ERPs) to track target and distractor processing, we show that healthy young adults are capable of suppressing a salient visual-search distractor (D2) while dual tasking (as measured by the P_D component, which has been associated with suppression) but struggle to do so shortly after the appearance of T1. In fact, the impairment was more severe for distractor processing than it was for target processing (as measured by the N2pc component). Whereas, the T2-elicited N2pc was merely delayed during the AB, the distractor P_D was reduced in magnitude and was found to be statistically absent. We conclude that the inhibitory control processes that are typically engaged to prevent distraction are unavailable while an observer is busy processing a target that appeared earlier.

On target selection as reflected by posterior ERP components in feature-guided visual search

The N2pc event-related potential is a widely studied ERP component that reflects the covert deployment of visuo-spatial attention to target stimuli displayed laterally relative to fixation. Recently, an analogous ERP component, named N2pcb, has been proposed as a marker of the deployment of visuo-spatial attention to targets displayed on the vertical midline. Two studies that investigated the N2pcb component found analogous results, using however two different algorithms to compute the amplitude of N2pcb. One study subtracted the ipsilateral activity elicited by a lateral target from the bilateral activity elicited by a target displayed on the vertical midline, whereas the other study subtracted the bilateral activity elicited by target-absent displays from the bilateral activity elicited by a target displayed on the vertical midline. Here we show both algorithms estimate properly the N2pc as well as the N2pcb components. In addition, we explored whether the singleton detection positivity (SDP) component, a posterior bilateral positivity temporally concomitant to N2pc recently reported in studies using singleton search, could be observed in the present study in which a target was defined by a combination of features. Given that such component was indeed found using feature search, we named this component posterior processing positivity (PPP), and showed that bilateral activity elicited by target-absent displays is an adequate baseline for its correct isolation.

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.

Learned distractor rejection persists across target search in a different dimension

Attention is guided by several factors, including task-relevant target features, which attract attention, but also statistical regularities associated distractors, which repel attention away from themselves. However, whether feature-based distractor regularities (e.g., color) are extracted automatically from a feature dimension orthogonal to the target-guiding dimension (e.g., shape) remains to be tested. In two experiments, we tested if learned distractor rejection by color operated when color was not part of the attentional control settings, specifically, while attention was guided by a shape-based target template. Participants performed a visual search task for a task-relevant shape in displays containing two unsegregated colors. These displays allowed us to manipulate target guidance (based on shape) independently from distractor-based regularities (based on color). In both experiments we found clear evidence for learned distractor rejection: faster mean response times to locate the target when a consistent distractor color was present than when it was absent. Critically, these task-irrelevant learned distractor rejection effects were robust despite strong target guidance by an orthogonal search dimension. These findings corroborate recent demonstrations of learned distractor rejection during strong target guidance, indicating that learned distractor rejection and target guidance can operate on separate feature dimensions.

Biased Competition between Targets and Distractors Reduces Attentional Suppression: Evidence from the Positivity Posterior Contralateral and Distractor Positivity

The biased competition account claims that competition between two stimuli increases when they are close together compared with when they are far apart. The reason is that nearby stimuli are more likely to be represented in the same receptive fields, requiring top-down or bottom-up biases to resolve the ambiguity. Consistent with biased competition, previous research showed that an index of attentional enhancement, the N2pc component, was attenuated when two targets were close together. In contrast, it is unclear whether distractor processing would also be attenuated when the distractor is close to the target. To answer this question, we used the additional singleton paradigm where a target is sometimes accompanied by a more salient, but entirely irrelevant, distractor. In the conditions of interest, the distance between the target and the distractor was systematically manipulated whereas the eccentricity to central fixation was always the same. The results showed that two indices of attentional suppression, the positivity posterior contralateral and distractor positivity components, were attenuated when the distractor was close to the target. Consistent with biased competition, attentional suppression of distractors was inhibited when the distance between target and distractor was short. The reduced attentional suppression of distractors with nearby targets may contribute to the increased behavioral interference with close distractors.

EXPRESS: Task-irrelevant filler items alter the dynamics of electrical brain activity during visual search

In EEG studies of visual search, task-irrelevant fillers are included in displays to balance bottom-up stimulation across the visual field, and generally considered as inconsequential for performance or EEG results. We examined the impact of fillers on target and distractor processing using lateralised event-related potentials (ERPs). Two task-relevant items (TRI) were presented, with or without fillers. One TRI (target or target-colour distractor) was on the vertical midline and the other in a lateral position (left or right visual field) on an imaginary circle around fixation. An N2pc was elicited by lateral targets and task-relevant distractors, suggesting that attention was allocated to the lateral TRI because it possessed a target defining feature (colour). A Ptc was only elicited by lateral task-relevant distractors, in line with previous research suggesting that this component is associated with distractor processing. When fillers were also in the circular arrangement, alterations in performance and neural activity occurred. Fillers enhanced and delayed attentional deployment (N2pc) and delayed distractor processing (Ptc). Critically, we observed no difference in Ptc amplitude according to filler presence. Thus, if the Ptc reflects active suppression (or attentional disengagement), it was not required for fillers. ERPs were also modulated by the distance between TRIs (which could be separated by one or four filler positions), but differently according to the colour scheme (blue TRIs with grey fillers or vice versa). Our results suggest fillers impact lateralised electrophysiological activity at multiple loci during visual search and should not be considered inconsequential.

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.

Oculomotor suppression of abrupt onsets versus color singletons

There is considerable evidence that salient items can be suppressed in order to prevent attentional capture. However, this evidence has relied almost exclusively on paradigms using color singletons as salient distractors. It is therefore unclear whether other kinds of salient stimuli, such as abrupt onsets, can also be suppressed. Using an additional singleton paradigm optimized for detecting oculomotor suppression, we directly compared color singletons with abrupt onsets. Participants searched for a target shape (e.g., green diamond) and attempted to ignore salient distractors that were either abrupt onsets or color singletons. First eye movements were used to assess whether salient distractors captured attention or were instead suppressed. Initial experiments using a type of abrupt onset from classic attentional capture studies (four white dots) revealed that abrupt onsets strongly captured attention whereas color singletons were suppressed. After controlling for important differences between the onsets and color singletons - such as luminance and color - abrupt-onset capture was reduced but not eliminated. We ultimately conclude that abrupt onsets are not suppressed like color singletons.

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.

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.

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.