Effects of spatial location on distractor interference

When target and distractor stimuli are close together, they activate the same neurons and there is ambiguity as to what the neural activity represents. It has been suggested that the ambiguity is resolved by spatial competition between target and nontarget stimuli. A competitive advantage is conveyed by bottom-up biases (e.g., stimulus saliency) and top-down biases (e.g., the match to a stored representation of the target stimulus). Here, we tested the hypothesis that regions with high perceptual performance may provide a bottom-up bias, resulting in increased distractor interference. Initially, we focused on two known anisotropies. At equal distance from central fixation, perceptual performance is better along the horizontal than the vertical meridian, and in the lower than in the upper visual hemifield. Consistently, interference from distractors on the horizontal meridian was greater than interference from distractors on the vertical meridian. However, distractors in the lower hemifield interfered less than distractors in the upper visual hemifield, which is contrary to the known anisotropy. These results were obtained with targets and distractors on opposite meridians. Further, we observed greater interference from distractors on the meridians compared with distractors on the diagonals, possibly reflecting anisotropies in attentional scanning. Overall, the results are only partially consistent with the hypothesis that distractor interference is larger for distractors on regions with high perceptual performance.

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.

Search mode, not the attentional window, determines the magnitude of attentional capture

A salient color distractor is known to capture attention during search for a less salient shape target, but the mechanisms underlying attentional capture are debated. Theeuwes (2004, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 65-70) argued that attentional capture depends on the size of the attentional window. If the attentional window is large, search is efficient and attentional capture should be stronger because the distractor is more likely to be inside the window. Consistently, we found higher search efficiency and more attentional capture in singleton than in feature search. However, differences in attentional capture only occurred when singleton and feature search were performed by different groups of participants, but not when singleton and feature search occurred unpredictably in the same group of participants. This result contradicts the attentional window account because search efficiency was always higher in singleton than in feature search. Rather, the results support search mode theory, which claims that participants looked for the most salient stimulus in singleton search ("singleton detection mode"), which resulted in more capture by the salient color distractor. When search types varied unpredictably, it was impossible to apply a consistent search strategy, which eliminated the differences between singleton and feature search. Further, we manipulated search efficiency by target-nontarget similarity. With dissimilar nontargets, the target was salient and search efficiency was high. Therefore, the attentional window account predicts more capture. However, we found the opposite result in singleton search and no difference in feature search. Taken together, these observations are inconsistent with the attentional window account but support search mode theory.

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.

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.

Long-term (statistically learnt) and short-term (inter-trial) distractor-location effects arise at different pre- and post-selective processing stages

A salient distractor interferes less with visual search if it appears at a location where it is likely to occur, referred to as distractor-location probability cueing. Conversely, if the current target appears at the same location as a distractor on the preceding trial, search is impeded. While these two location-specific "suppression" effects reflect long-term, statistically learnt and short-term, inter-trial adaptations of the system to distractors, it is unclear at what stage(s) of processing they arise. Here, we adopted the additional-singleton paradigm and examined lateralized event-related potentials (L-ERPs) and lateralized alpha (8-12 Hz) power to track the temporal dynamics of these effects. Behaviorally, we confirmed both effects: reaction times (RTs) interference was reduced for distractors at frequent versus rare (distractor) locations, and RTs were delayed for targets that appeared at previous distractor versus non-distractor locations. Electrophysiologically, the statistical-learning effect was not associated with lateralized alpha power during the pre-stimulus period. Rather, it was seen in an early N1pc referenced to the frequent distractor location (whether or not a distractor or a target occurred there), indicative of a learnt top-down prioritization of this location. This early top-down influence was systematically modulated by (competing) target- and distractor-generated bottom-up saliency signals in the display. In contrast, the inter-trial effect was reflected in an enhanced SPCN when the target was preceded by a distractor at its location. This suggests that establishing that an attentionally selected item is a task-relevant target, rather than an irrelevant distractor, is more demanding at a previously "rejected" distractor location.

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.

Cognitive neuroscience perspective on memory: overview and summary

This paper explores memory from a cognitive neuroscience perspective and examines associated neural mechanisms. It examines the different types of memory: working, declarative, and non-declarative, and the brain regions involved in each type. The paper highlights the role of different brain regions, such as the prefrontal cortex in working memory and the hippocampus in declarative memory. The paper also examines the mechanisms that underlie the formation and consolidation of memory, including the importance of sleep in the consolidation of memory and the role of the hippocampus in linking new memories to existing cognitive schemata. The paper highlights two types of memory consolidation processes: cellular consolidation and system consolidation. Cellular consolidation is the process of stabilizing information by strengthening synaptic connections. System consolidation models suggest that memories are initially stored in the hippocampus and are gradually consolidated into the neocortex over time. The consolidation process involves a hippocampal-neocortical binding process incorporating newly acquired information into existing cognitive schemata. The paper highlights the role of the medial temporal lobe and its involvement in autobiographical memory. Further, the paper discusses the relationship between episodic and semantic memory and the role of the hippocampus. Finally, the paper underscores the need for further research into the neurobiological mechanisms underlying non-declarative memory, particularly conditioning. Overall, the paper provides a comprehensive overview from a cognitive neuroscience perspective of the different processes involved in memory consolidation of different types of memory.

The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and When Not?

There has been a long-standing debate concerning whether we are able to resist attention capture by salient distractors. The so-called "signal suppression hypothesis" of Gaspelin and Luck (2018) claimed to have resolved this debate. According to this view, salient stimuli "naturally attempt to capture attention", yet attention capture may be prevented by a top-down inhibitory mechanism. The current paper describes the conditions in which attention capture by salient distractors can be avoided. Capture by salient items can be avoided when the target is non-salient and therefore difficult to find. Because fine discrimination is needed, a small attentional window is adapted resulting in serial (or partly serial) search. Salient signals outside the focused attentional window do not capture attention anymore not because they are suppressed but because they are ignored. We argue that in studies that have provided evidence for signal suppression, search was likely serial or at least partly serial. When the target is salient, search will be conducted in parallel, and in those cases the salient singleton cannot be ignored nor suppressed but instead will capture attention. We argue that the "signal suppression" account (Gaspelin & Luck, 2018) that seeks to explain resistance to attentional capture has many parallels to classic visual search models such as the "feature integration theory" (Treisman & Gelade, 1980), "feature inhibition" account (Treisman & Sato, 1990), and "guided search" (Wolfe et al, 1989); all models that explain how the serial deployment of attention is guided by the output of earlier parallel processes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Statistical learning in visual search reflects distractor rarity, not only attentional suppression

In visual search tasks, salient distractors may capture attention involuntarily, but interference can be reduced when the salient distractor appears more frequently on one out of several possible positions. The reduction was attributed to attentional suppression of the high-probability position. However, all previous studies on this topic compared performance on the high-probability position to the remaining positions, which had a low probability of containing the distractor. Therefore, it is not clear whether the difference resulted from reduced interference on the high-probability position or from increased interference on the low-probability positions. To decide between these alternatives, we compared high-probability and low-probability with equal-probability positions. Consistent with attentional suppression, interference was reduced on the high-probability position compared with equal-probability positions. However, there was also an increase in interference on low-probability positions compared with equal-probability positions. The increase is in line with previous reports of boosted interference when distractors are rare. Our results show that the experimental design used in previous research is insufficient to separate effects of attentional suppression and those of distractor rarity.

Where to display vital information? ERP evidence for Background changes

Critical decision systems require expeditious and accurate responses to the displayed information. In addition to content, location and background are equally important. Several visual search studies have pointed out the differences and compared modes of top-down attention allocation: distractor suppression and attentional capture. Previous studies have used color (mainly) and shape as a feature but have overlooked luminance as a feature for studying underlying attention mechanisms. The present study attempts to bridge this gap. In this study, participants performed a target-distractor discrimination task by identifying a randomly appearing target from the pool of distractors based on defined luminance levels. Background change was noticed by manipulating the task such as making visible quadrant boundaries over the screen. The preliminary evidence suggested that displaying information at the top-left of the screen had higher percentage accuracy; whereas, response time (RT) remained unaffected. Improvement in RT and percentage accuracy was observed with task manipulation. Event-related potential (ERP) analysis revealed elicited Distractor Positivity (PD), providing evidence for the distractor suppression hypothesis. Further, differences emerged in the topographic plot of N2pc and PD. In sum, the result contributes to classic debate of capture vs. suppression and provides a crucial connection between display design and electrophysiological indices, emphasizing locations and background as equally important factors.

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.

Do we need attentional suppression?

Gaspelin and Luck describe the signal suppression hypothesis, which proposes that attentional suppression prevents the capture of visual attention by salient distractors. We will discuss several problems with this proposal. On a theoretical level, we will argue that attentional suppression is a dispensable mechanism. Most effects of attentional suppression can be easily explained by reduced target expectancy at the distractor location. On an empirical level, we will argue that electrophysiological evidence for attentional suppression is spurious because, in key conditions, the P_D most likely reflects idiosyncratic scan paths.

Standing out in a small crowd: The role of display size in attracting attention

Strong evidence supporting the top-down modulation of attention has come from studies in which participants learned to suppress a singleton in a heterogeneous four-item display. These studies have been criticized on the grounds that the displays are so sparse that the singleton is not actually salient. We argue that similar evidence of suppression has been found with substantially larger displays where salience is not in question. Additionally, we examine the results of applying salience models to four-item displays, and find prominent markers of salience at the location of the singleton. We conclude that small heterogeneous displays do not preclude strong salience signals. Beyond that, we reflect on how further basic research on salience may speed resolution of the attentional capture debate.

Preparatory Control Against Distraction Is Not Feature-Based

Salient-but-irrelevant stimuli (distractors) co-occurring with search targets can capture attention against the observer's will. Recently, evidence has accumulated that preparatory control can prevent this misguidance of spatial attention in predictable situations. However, the underlying mechanisms have remained elusive. Most pertinent theories assume that attention is guided by specific features. This widespread theoretical claim provides several strong predictions with regard to distractor handling that are disconfirmed here: Employing electrophysiological markers of covert attentional dynamics, in three experiments, we show that distractors standing out by a feature that is categorically different from the target consistently captures attention. However, equally salient distractors standing out in a different feature dimension are effectively down-weighted, even if unpredictably swapping their defining feature with the target. This shows that preparing for a distractor's feature is neither necessary nor sufficient for successful avoidance of attentional capture. Rather, capture is prevented by preparing for the distractor's feature dimension.

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.

Working memory content guides attention

Previous studies showed that working memory (WM) content can guide attention; however, whether working memory capacity (WMC) and state anxiety could affect this remains unclear. This study aimed to examine the effect of WMC and state anxiety on attention guided by WM content. Participants with high and low WMC were assigned to either a neutral or an anxiety condition. They were asked to perform a modified change detection task with irrelevant singletons while their event-related potentials were recorded. N2pc and Pd were observed in the low-WMC and anxiety group, and Pd was observed in both the high-WMC and anxiety and the high-WMC and control groups, whereas neither N2pc nor Pd was found in the low-WMC and control group. These findings suggest that attention is guided or suppressed by WM content, depending on the WMC and anxiety level of the individual. This study provides a new perspective on WM content-guided attention.

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

The hypothesis that salient distractors in visual search are actively suppressed is supported by the fact that these objects elicit P_D components believed to be associated with inhibition. This account was challenged by researchers who found that a P_D to lateral color singleton distractors was followed by a contralateral negativity, which they interpreted as an N2pc indicative of attentional capture. As this would be at odds with successful distractor suppression, they proposed an alternative lateral-first serial scanning hypothesis, which assumes that the P_D might actually be an N2pc elicited when a lateral context item is selected. We tested this hypothesis by measuring lateralized ERP components to search displays with two lateral and two vertical midline items, including a color singleton and a shape-defined target. Color singletons triggered P_D components not only in blocks where attention was unfocused because target location was unpredictable, but critically also in blocks where targets only appeared on the midline and participants had no reason to attend to lateral items. This is inconsistent with the serial scanning hypothesis and supports the idea that the P_D reflects signal suppression. P_D components to singleton distractors were followed by a contralateral negativity, which we interpreted as a second P_D elicited by nonsalient distractors on the opposite side. Our sequential inhibition account reconciles conflicting results of recent studies and emphasizes the role of inhibitory processes during attentional target selection in visual search.

Attentional Templates Are Sharpened through Differential Signal Enhancement, Not Differential Allocation of Attention

In visual search, the internal representation of the target feature is referred to as the attentional template. The attentional template can be broad or precise depending on the task requirements. In singleton search, the attentional template is broad because the target is the only colored element in the display. In feature search, a precise attentional template is required because the target is in a specific color in an array of varied colors. To measure the precision of the attentional template, we used a cue-target paradigm where cueing benefits decrease when the cue color differs from the target color. Consistent with broad and precise attentional templates, the decrease of cueing effects was stronger in feature than in singleton search. Measurements of ERPs showed that the N2pc elicited by the cue decreased with increasing color difference, suggesting that attention was more strongly captured by cues that were similar to the target. However, the cue-elicited N2pc did not differ between feature and singleton search, making it unlikely to reflect the mechanism underlying attentional template precision. Furthermore, there was no evidence for attentional suppression as there was no cue-elicited P_D, even in conditions where the cueing benefit turned into a same-location cost. However, an index of signal enhancement, the contralateral positivity, reflected attention template precision. In general, there was sensory enhancement of the stimulus appearing at the cued location in the search display. With broad attentional templates, any stimulus at the cued location was enhanced, whereas enhancement was restricted to target-matching colors with precise attentional templates.

Progress Toward Resolving the Attentional Capture Debate

For over 25 years, researchers have debated whether physically salient stimuli capture attention in an automatic manner, independent of the observer's goals, or whether the capture of attention depends on the match between a stimulus and the observer's task set. Recent evidence suggests an intermediate position in which salient stimuli automatically produce a priority signal, but the capture of attention can be prevented via an inhibitory mechanism that suppresses the salient stimulus. Here, proponents from multiple sides of the debate describe how their original views have changed in light of recent research, as well as remaining areas of disagreement. These perspectives highlight some emerging areas of consensus and provide new directions for future research on attentional capture.

Statistical regularities cause attentional suppression with target-matching distractors

Visual search may be disrupted by the presentation of salient, but irrelevant stimuli. To reduce the impact of salient distractors, attention may suppress their processing below baseline level. While there are many studies on the attentional suppression of distractors with features distinct from the target (e.g., a color distractor with a shape target), there is little and inconsistent evidence for attentional suppression with distractors sharing the target feature. In this study, distractor and target were temporally separated in a cue–target paradigm, where the cue was shown briefly before the target display. With target-matching cues, RTs were shorter when the cue appeared at the target location (valid cues) compared with when it appeared at a nontarget location (invalid cues). To induce attentional suppression, we presented the cue more frequently at one out of four possible target positions. We found that invalid cues appearing at the high-frequency cue position produced less interference than invalid cues appearing at a low-frequency cue position. Crucially, target processing was also impaired at the high-frequency cue position, providing strong evidence for attentional suppression of the cued location. Overall, attentional suppression of the frequent distractor location could be established through feature-based attention, suggesting that feature-based attention may guide attentional suppression just as it guides attentional enhancement.

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.