Preparatory effects of distractor suppression: evidence from visual cortex

The DLPFC is centrally involved in resolving Stroop conflicts, suppressing distracting sensory input within the auditory and visual system

Introduction

Cognitive control is a prerequisite for successful, goal-oriented behavior. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is assumed to be a key player in applying cognitive control; however, the neural mechanisms by which this process is accomplished are still unclear.

Methods

To further address this question, an audiovisual Stroop task was used, comprising simultaneously presented pictures and spoken names of actors and politicians. Depending on the task block, participants had to indicate whether they saw the face or heard the name of a politician or an actor (visual vs. auditory blocks). In congruent trials, both stimuli (visual and auditory) belonged to the same response category (actor or politician); in incongruent trials, they belonged to different categories. During this task, activity in sensory target regions was measured via functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and electroencephalography (EEG), respectively. Specifically, fNIRS was used to monitor activity levels within the auditory cortex, while the EEG-based event-related potential of the N170 was considered as a marker of FFA (fusiform face area) involvement. Additionally, we assessed the effects of inhibitory theta-burst stimulation-a specific protocol based on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)-over the right DLPFC. Non-invasive brain stimulation is one of the few means to draw causal conclusions in human neuroscience. In this case, rTMS was used to temporarily inhibit the right DLPFC as a presumed key player in solving Stroop conflicts in one of two measurement sessions; then, effects were examined on behavioral measures as well as neurophysiological signals reflecting task-related activity in the frontal lobes and sensory cortices.

Results

The results indicate a central role of the DLPFC in the implementation of cognitive control in terms of a suppression of distracting sensory input in both the auditory cortex and visual system (FFA) in high-conflict situations. Behavioral data confirm a reduced Stroop effect following previous incongruent trials ("Gratton effect") that was only accomplished with an intact DLPFC (i.e., following placebo stimulation).

Discussion

Because non-invasive brain stimulation is uniquely suited to causally test neuroscientific hypotheses in humans, these data give important insights into some of the mechanisms by which the DLPFC establishes conflict resolution across different sensory modalities.

No evidence for spatial suppression due to across-trial distractor learning in visual search

Previous studies have shown that during visual search, participants are able to implicitly learn across-trial regularities regarding target locations and use these to improve search performance. The present study asks whether such across-trial visual statistical learning also extends to the location of salient distractors. In Experiments 1 and 2, distractor regularities were paired so that a specific distractor location was 100% predictive of another specific distractor location on the next trial. Unlike previous findings that employed target regularities, the current results show no difference in search times between predictable and unpredictable trials. In Experiments 3-5 the distractor location was presented in a structured order (a sequence) for one group of participants, while it was presented randomly for the other group. Again, there was no learning effect of the across-trial regularities regarding the salient distractor locations. Across five experiments, we demonstrated that participants were unable to exploit across-trial spatial regularities regarding the salient distractors. These findings point to important boundary conditions for the modulation of visual attention by statistical regularities and they highlight the need to differentiate between different types of statistical regularities.

Cognitive Neural Mechanism of Backward Inhibition and Deinhibition: A Review

Task switching is one of the typical paradigms to study cognitive control. When switching back to a recently inhibited task (e.g., “A” in an ABA sequence), the performance is often worse compared to a task without N-2 task repetitions (e.g., CBA). This difference is called the backward inhibitory effect (BI effect), which reflects the process of overcoming residual inhibition from a recently performed task (i.e., deinhibition). The neural mechanism of backward inhibition and deinhibition has received a lot of attention in the past decade. Multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, parietal, basal ganglia, and cerebellum, are activated during deinhibition. The event-related potentials (ERP) studies have shown that deinhibition process is reflected in the P1/N1 and P3 components, which might be related to early attention control, context updating, and response selection, respectively. Future research can use a variety of new paradigms to separate the neural mechanisms of BI and deinhibition.

Is Statistical Learning of a Salient Distractor's Color Implicit, Inflexible and Distinct From Inter-Trial Priming?

Being able to overcome distraction by salient distractors is critical in order to allocate our attention efficiently. Previous research showed that observers can learn to ignore salient distractors endowed with some regularity, such as a high-probability location or feature - a phenomenon known as distractor statistical learning. Unlike goal-directed attentional guidance, the bias induced by statistical learning is thought to be implicit, long-lasting and inflexible. We tested these claims with regard to statistical learning of distractor color in a high-power (N = 160) pre-registered experiment. Participants searched for a known-shape singleton target and a color singleton distractor, when present, appeared most often in one color during the learning phase, but equally often in all possible colors during the extinction phase. We used a sensitive measure of participants' awareness of the probability manipulation. The awareness test was administered after the extinction phase for one group, and after the leaning phase for another group - which was informed that the probability imbalance would be discontinued in the upcoming extinction phase. Participants learned to suppress the high-probability distractor color very fast, an effect partly due to intertrial priming. Crucially, there was only little evidence that the bias survived during extinction. Awareness of the manipulation was associated with reduced color suppression, suggesting that the bias was implicit. Finally, results showed that the awareness test was more sensitive when administered early vs. late. We conclude that learnt color suppression is an implicit bias that emerges and decays rapidly, and discuss the methodological implications of our findings.

Statistical Learning of Frequent Distractor Locations in Visual Search Involves Regional Signal Suppression in Early Visual Cortex

Observers can learn locations where salient distractors appear frequently to reduce potential interference-an effect attributed to better suppression of distractors at frequent locations. But how distractor suppression is implemented in the visual cortex and within the frontoparietal attention networks remains unclear. We used fMRI and a regional distractor-location learning paradigm with two types of distractors defined in either the same (orientation) or a different (color) dimension to the target to investigate this issue. fMRI results showed that BOLD signals in early visual cortex were significantly reduced for distractors (as well as targets) occurring at the frequent versus rare locations, mirroring behavioral patterns. This reduction was more robust with same-dimension distractors. Crucially, behavioral interference was correlated with distractor-evoked visual activity only for same- (but not different-) dimension distractors. Moreover, with different- (but not same-) dimension distractors, a color-processing area within the fusiform gyrus was activated more when a distractor was present in the rare region versus being absent and more with a distractor in the rare versus frequent locations. These results support statistical learning of frequent distractor locations involving regional suppression in early visual cortex and point to differential neural mechanisms of distractor handling with different- versus same-dimension distractors.

Strategic Distractor Suppression Improves Selective Control in Human Vision

Our visual environment is complicated, and our cognitive capacity is limited. As a result, we must strategically ignore some stimuli to prioritize others. Common sense suggests that foreknowledge of distractor characteristics, like location or color, might help us ignore these objects. But empirical studies have provided mixed evidence, often showing that knowing about a distractor before it appears counterintuitively leads to its attentional selection. What has looked like strategic distractor suppression in the past is now commonly explained as a product of prior experience and implicit statistical learning, and the long-standing notion the distractor suppression is reflected in α band oscillatory brain activity has been challenged by results appearing to link α to target resolution. Can we strategically, proactively suppress distractors? And, if so, does this involve α? Here, we use the concurrent recording of human EEG and eye movements in optimized experimental designs to identify behavior and brain activity associated with proactive distractor suppression. Results from three experiments show that knowing about distractors before they appear causes a reduction in electrophysiological indices of covert attentional selection of these objects and a reduction in the overt deployment of the eyes to the location of the objects. This control is established before the distractor appears and is predicted by the power of cue-elicited α activity over the visual cortex. Foreknowledge of distractor characteristics therefore leads to improved selective control, and α oscillations in visual cortex reflect the implementation of this strategic, proactive mechanism.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT To behave adaptively and achieve goals we often need to ignore visual distraction. Is it easier to ignore distracting objects when we know more about them? We recorded eye movements and electrical brain activity to determine whether foreknowledge of distractor characteristics can be used to limit processing of these objects. Results show that knowing the location or color of a distractor stops us from attentionally selecting it. A neural signature of this inhibition emerges in oscillatory alpha band brain activity, and when this signal is strong, selective processing of the distractor decreases. Knowing about the characteristics of task-irrelevant distractors therefore increases our ability to focus on task-relevant information, in this way gating information processing in the brain.

Proactive distractor suppression elicited by statistical regularities in visual search

Irrelevant salient objects may capture our attention and interfere with visual search. Recently, it was shown that distraction by a salient object is reduced when it is presented more frequently at one location than at other locations. The present study investigates whether this reduced distractor interference is the result of proactive spatial suppression, implemented prior to display onset, or reactive suppression, occurring after attention has been directed to that location. Participants were asked to search for a shape singleton in the presence of an irrelevant salient color singleton which was presented more often at one location (the high-probability location) than at all other locations (the low-probability locations). On some trials, instead of the search task, participants performed a probe task, in which they had to detect the offset of a probe dot. The results of the search task replicated previous findings showing reduced distractor interference in trials in which the salient distractor was presented at the high-probability location as compared with the low-probability locations. The probe task showed that reaction times were longer for probes presented at the high-probability location than at the low-probability locations. These results indicate that through statistical learning the location that is likely to contain a distractor is suppressed proactively (i.e., prior to display onset). It suggests that statistical learning modulates the first feed-forward sweep of information processing by deprioritizing locations that are likely to contain a distractor in the spatial priority map.

Changes in visual cortical processing attenuate singleton distraction during visual search

The ability to suppress distractions is essential to successful completion of goal-directed behaviors. Several behavioral studies have recently provided strong evidence that learned suppression may be particularly efficient in reducing distractor interference. Expectations about a distractor's repeated location, color, or even presence are rapidly learned and used to attenuate interference. In this study, we use a visual search paradigm in which a color singleton, which is known to capture attention, occurs within blocks with high or low frequency. The behavioral results show reduced singleton interference during the high compared to the low frequency block (Won et al., 2019). The fMRI results provide evidence that the attenuation of distractor interference is supported by changes in singleton, target, and non-salient distractor representations within retinotopic visual cortex. These changes in visual cortex are accompanied by findings that singleton-present trials compared to non-singleton trials produce greater activation in bilateral parietal cortex, indicative of attentional capture, in low frequency, but not high frequency blocks. Together, these results suggest that the readout of saliency signals associated with an expected color singleton from visual cortex is suppressed, resulting in less competition for attentional priority in frontoparietal attentional control regions.

Inhibition in selective attention

Our ability to focus on goal-relevant aspects of the environment is critically dependent on our ability to ignore or inhibit distracting information. One perspective is that distractor inhibition is under similar voluntary control as attentional facilitation of target processing. However, a rapidly growing body of research shows that distractor inhibition often relies on prior experience with the distracting information or other mechanisms that need not rely on active representation in working memory. Yet, how and when these different forms of inhibition are neurally implemented remains largely unclear. Here, we review findings from recent behavioral and neuroimaging studies to address this outstanding question. We specifically explore how experience with distracting information may change the processing of that information in the context of current predictive processing views of perception: by modulating a distractor's representation already in anticipation of the distractor, or after integration of top-down and bottom-up sensory signals. We also outline directions for future research necessary to enhance our understanding of how the brain filters out distracting information.

Attentional set and the gradient of visual spatial attention

There are a number of factors that may influence the shape and scope of the gradient of visual attention. This study examined the role of attentional set in determining the scope and presence of suppression in the gradient of visual selective attention observed in the P1 event related potential waveform. Twenty-two participants were asked to attend to a specific location and respond to a target stimulus. However, thirty percent of the time, the stimulus could also appear at one of 7 other locations (three ipsilateral to the attended location and four contralateral). Attentional set was varied by changes in the instructions to avoid confounds created by changing the stimuli. In half of the study participants were asked to respond only to stimuli that appeared at the designated location. In the other half of the study participants were asked to attend to the designated location but respond to all stimuli. Results demonstrate a significant main effect of attentional set, with greater processing when participants were asked to respond to all stimuli as compared to when they were only asked to respond to stimuli at the designated location. Additionally a significant interaction between visual field and location shows greater differences in processing (i.e. an attentional effect) at locations closer to the designated location. Findings are discussed in relation to the scope and gradient of attention.

Sensorineural hearing loss degrades behavioral and physiological measures of human spatial selective auditory attention

Listeners with sensorineural hearing loss often have trouble understanding speech amid other voices. While poor spatial hearing is often implicated, direct evidence is weak; moreover, studies suggest that reduced audibility and degraded spectrotemporal coding may explain such problems. We hypothesized that poor spatial acuity leads to difficulty deploying selective attention, which normally filters out distracting sounds. In listeners with normal hearing, selective attention causes changes in the neural responses evoked by competing sounds, which can be used to quantify the effectiveness of attentional control. Here, we used behavior and electroencephalography to explore whether control of selective auditory attention is degraded in hearing-impaired (HI) listeners. Normal-hearing (NH) and HI listeners identified a simple melody presented simultaneously with two competing melodies, each simulated from different lateral angles. We quantified performance and attentional modulation of cortical responses evoked by these competing streams. Compared with NH listeners, HI listeners had poorer sensitivity to spatial cues, performed more poorly on the selective attention task, and showed less robust attentional modulation of cortical responses. Moreover, across NH and HI individuals, these measures were correlated. While both groups showed cortical suppression of distracting streams, this modulation was weaker in HI listeners, especially when attending to a target at midline, surrounded by competing streams. These findings suggest that hearing loss interferes with the ability to filter out sound sources based on location, contributing to communication difficulties in social situations. These findings also have implications for technologies aiming to use neural signals to guide hearing aid processing.

Compensation mechanisms that improve distractor filtering are short-lived

We investigated possible compensation mechanisms for improving filtering of distractors from entering visual Working Memory (WM). Participants preformed a change-detection task in which three targets, six targets, or three targets along with three distractors (the filtering trial) were randomly presented. In six experiments, we tried to reduce the filtering cost, calculated as the difference in accuracy between the three targets and the filtering condition, by either cueing the possible locations of the distractors using placeholders (that could be either fixed throughout the experiment or change every trial; i.e., location cue), or by providing the location cue coupled with a warning cue singling the upcoming filtering trial. Results revealed that the filtering cost was not reduced by a fixed location cue (Experiment 1 and Experiment 5). However, the fixed location cue coupled with a warning cue (Experiment 2 and Experiment 5) or a location cue that changed positions every trial (Experiment 6), were sufficient to reduce the filtering cost. Additionally, longer preparation interval for filtering trials did not further reduce the filtering cost (Experiment 3). We argue these findings support that in the context of visual WM, spatial filtering settings can only be held for a limited amount of time. Thus, these filtering settings must be reactivated in order to be effective and to reduce the filtering cost.