Unconscious Cueing via the Superior Colliculi: Evidence from Searching for Onset and Color Targets

The Nature of Unconscious Attention to Subliminal Cues

Attentional selection in humans is mostly determined by what is important to them or by the saliency of the objects around them. How our visual and attentional system manage these various sources of attentional capture is one of the most intensely debated issues in cognitive psychology. Along with the traditional dichotomy of goal-driven and stimulus-driven theories, newer frameworks such as reward learning and selection history have been proposed as well to understand how a stimulus captures attention. However, surprisingly little is known about the different forms of attentional control by information that is not consciously accessible to us. In this article, we will review several studies that have examined attentional capture by subliminal cues. We will specifically focus on spatial cuing studies that have shown through response times and eye movements that subliminal cues can affect attentional selection. A majority of these studies have argued that attentional capture by subliminal cues is entirely automatic and stimulus-driven. We will evaluate their claims of automaticity and contrast them with a few other studies that have suggested that orienting to unconscious cues proceeds in a manner that is contingent with the top-down goals of the individual. Resolving this debate has consequences for understanding the depths and the limits of unconscious processing. It has implications for general theories of attentional selection as well. In this review, we aim to provide the current status of research in this domain and point out open questions and future directions.

Cue-target contingencies modulate voluntary orienting of spatial attention: dissociable effects for speed and accuracy

Voluntary orienting of spatial attention is typically investigated by visually presented directional cues, which are called predictive when they indicate where the target is more likely to appear. In this study, we investigated the nature of the potential link between cue predictivity (the proportion of valid trials) and the strength of the resulting covert orienting of attention. Participants judged the orientation of a unilateral Gabor grating preceded by a centrally presented, non-directional, color cue, arbitrarily prompting a leftwards or rightwards shift of attention. Unknown to them, cue predictivity was manipulated across blocks, whereby the cue was only predictive for either the first or the second half of the experiment. Our results show that the cueing effects were strongly influenced by the change in predictivity. This influence differently emerged in response speed and accuracy. The speed difference between valid and invalid trials was significantly larger when cues were predictive, and the amplitude of this effect was modulated at the single trial level by the recent trial history. Complementary to these findings, accuracy revealed a robust effect of block history and also a different time-course compared with speed, as if it mainly mirrored voluntary processes. These findings, obtained with a new manipulation and using arbitrary non-directional cueing, demonstrate that cue-target contingencies strongly modulate the way attention is deployed in space.

Stimulus-driven attentional capture by subliminal onset cues

In two experiments, we tested whether subliminal abrupt onset cues capture attention in a stimulus-driven way. An onset cue was presented 16 ms prior to the stimulus display that consisted of clearly visible color targets. The onset cue was presented either at the same side as the target (the valid cue condition) or on the opposite side of the target (the invalid cue condition). Because the onset cue was presented 16 ms before other placeholders were presented, the cue was subliminal to the participant. To ensure that this subliminal cue captured attention in a stimulus-driven way, the cue's features did not match the top-down attentional control settings of the participants: (1) The color of the cue was always different than the color of the non-singleton targets ensuring that a top-down set for a specific color or for a singleton would not match the cue, and (2) colored targets and distractors had the same objective luminance (measured by the colorimeter) and subjective lightness (measured by flicker photometry), preventing a match between the top-down set for target and cue contrast. Even though a match between the cues and top-down settings was prevented, in both experiments, the cues captured attention, with faster response times in valid than invalid cue conditions (Experiments 1 and 2) and faster response times in valid than the neutral conditions (Experiment 2). The results support the conclusion that subliminal cues capture attention in a stimulus-driven way.

A mathematical model of saccadic reaction time as a function of the fixation point brightness gain

The gap effect refers to a reduction in saccadic reaction time (SRT) to an eccentric target, when the fixation point is removed before the target onset. Though it is known that the gap effect peaks when the fixation point is offset about 200 ms before the onset of the eccentric target, it is unknown how this effect is modulated by stimulus variations. In this paper, we propose and investigate a model of saccadic reaction time as a function of the fixation point brightness gain. The brightness gain is defined as the ratio of the final and initial intensities of the stimulus. We have conducted a typical gap effect experiment with 15 participants, where the brightness of the fixation point was manipulated under four conditions and two gap intervals, at the same time and 200 ms before the onset of the eccentric target. The conditions included removing the fixation point (offset), leaving it with constant brightness (overlap), reducing, and increasing its brightness (lower and higher brightness conditions). Experimental data showed a significant gap effect in the offset and lower brightness conditions when compared to the overlap condition. On the other hand, the SRT was significantly longer for the higher brightness condition than the SRT for the overlap condition. Linear regression analysis using ten values of brightness gain shows that our model fits the data well for the 0- and 200-ms gap, with a coefficient of determination of .89 and .94, respectively.

S-ketamine influences strategic allocation of attention but not exogenous capture of attention

We investigated whether s-ketamine differentially affects strategic allocation of attention. In Experiment 1, (1) a less visible cue was weakly masked by the onsets of competing placeholders or (2) a better visible cue was not masked because it was presented in isolation. Both types of cue appeared more often opposite of the target (75%) than at target position (25%). With this setup, we tested for strategic attention shifts to the opposite side of the cues and for exogenous attentional capture toward the cue's side in a short cue-target interval, as well as for (reverse) cueing effects in a long cue-target interval after s-ketamine and after placebo treatment in a double-blind within-participant design. We found reduced strategic attention shifts after cues presented without placeholders for the s-ketamine compared to the placebo treatment in the short interval, indicating an early effect on the strategic allocation of attention. No differences between the two treatments were found for exogenous attentional capture by less visible cues, suggesting that s-ketamine does not affect exogenous attentional capture in the presence of competing distractors. Experiment 2 confirmed that the competing onsets of the placeholders prevented the strategic cueing effect. Taken together, the results indicate that s-ketamine affects strategic attentional capture, but not exogenous attentional capture. The findings point to a more prominent role of s-ketamine during top-down controlled forms of attention that require suppression of automatic capture than during automatic capture itself.

Inhibition of return is no hallmark of exogenous capture by unconscious cues

Inhibition of irrelevant information and response tendencies is a central characteristic of conscious control and executive functions. However, recent theories in vision considered Inhibition of Return (IOR: slower responses to attended than unattended positions) to be a hallmark of automatic exogenous capture of visual attention by unconscious cues. In the present study, we show that an unconscious cue that exogenously captures attention does not lead to IOR. First of all, subliminal cues with a contrast different from a searched-for target contrast capture attention independently of their match of contrast polarity to the search criteria. This is found with a short cue-target interval (Exp. 1). However, the same cues do not lead to IOR with a long cue-target interval. The lack of IOR is also verified for several intermediate intervals (Exp. 2), for high-contrast cues and low-contrast targets (Exp. 3), and with lower luminance cues presented on a CRT screen (Exp. 4). Finally, no capture effect but IOR is found for consciously perceived anti-predictive cues (Exp. 5). Together the results support the notion of a double dissociation between IOR and exogenous capture and are in line with a decisive role of consciousness for inhibition.