Attentional capture modulates perceptual sensitivity

Suppression of distracting inputs by visual-spatial cues is driven by anticipatory alpha activity

A growing body of research demonstrates that distracting inputs can be proactively suppressed via spatial cues, nonspatial cues, or experience, which are governed by more than one top-down mechanism of attention. However, how the neural mechanisms underlying spatial distractor cues guide proactive suppression of distracting inputs remains unresolved. Here, we recorded electroencephalography signals from 110 participants in 3 experiments to identify the role of alpha activity in proactive distractor suppression induced by spatial cues and its influence on subsequent distractor inhibition. Behaviorally, we found novel changes in the spatial proximity of the distractor: Cueing distractors far away from the target improves search performance for the target, while cueing distractors close to the target hampers performance. Crucially, we found dynamic characteristics of spatial representation for distractor suppression during anticipation. This result was further verified by alpha power increased relatively contralateral to the cued distractor. At both the between- and within-subjects levels, we found that these activities further predicted the decrement of the subsequent PD component, which was indicative of reduced distractor interference. Moreover, anticipatory alpha activity and its link with the subsequent PD component were specific to the high predictive validity of distractor cue. Together, our results reveal the underlying neural mechanisms by which cueing the spatial distractor may contribute to reduced distractor interference. These results also provide evidence supporting the role of alpha activity as gating by proactive suppression.

Attentional disengagement effect based on relevant features

In visual search tasks, distractors similar to the target can attract our attention and affect the speed of attentional disengagement. The attentional disengagement refers to shifting attention away from stimuli that are not relevant to the task. Previous studies mainly focused on the attentional disengagement of one feature dimension. However, the mechanisms of different feature dimensions on attentional disengagement in single and conjunction visual search remain unclear. In the current study, we adopted the oculomotor disengagement paradigm and used saccade latency as an indicator to explore the effects of different feature dimensions of center stimuli on attentional disengagement. In both single and conjunction feature search tasks, participants began each search by fixating on a center stimulus that appeared simultaneously with search display but would not be the target. Participants were instructed to ensure the first saccade to the target location. In Experiments 1A (single feature search) and 1B (conjunction feature search), we found that the attentional disengagement was significantly delayed or accelerated when center stimuli shared color features with the target or salient distractor, but not in shape feature. Moreover, we found that the difference between the two feature dimensions might be caused by their different search difficulty (Experiment 1C). Therefore, in Experiment 2, we matched the difficulty of searching for color and shape tasks before exploring whether there were differences in the effects of different feature dimensions on attentional disengagement. However, the results in Experiment 2 were similar to those in Experiment 1A, indicating that the different effects of feature dimensions on attentional disengagement were caused by feature asymmetry. Therefore, in Experiment 3, we improved the salient discernibility of shape dimension and matched color search to it. The results showed that although the attentional disengagement was delayed in shape dimension, it was still smaller than that in color dimension. Our results supported that goal-oriented attention sets were the main cause of delayed attentional disengagement. By series of experiments, we found that the utilization of different feature dimensions was associated with task difficulty and the features asymmetry in both single and conjunction visual search.

Salience matters: Distractors may, or may not, speed target-absent searches

Attention is often captured by irrelevant but salient changes in the environment, and usually results in slowed search speeds and increased errors during a typical visual search task. Nonetheless, a recent study conducted by Moher (2020, Psychological Science, 31[1], 31-42) found that the effect of a highly salient distractor on visual search depended on whether or not a target was also present in the display. While the distractor slowed search and increased errors for target-present trials, it speeded search for target-absent trials. Here, we aimed to replicate this finding and explore a potential boundary condition to the effect by manipulating the overall salience of the distractor. We did this by changing the size of the distractor to make it more or less salient. In Experiment, participants conducted a target-present and target-absent visual search task in the presence of a large, delayed-onset color distractor similar to that used in Moher's Study. In Experiment 2, a distractor that was much smaller than that used in the original Moher study was utilized. Critically, when a large distractor was used, the original findings of Moher were largely replicated; large salient distractors speeded target-absent visual search and increased errors for target-present visual search. However, when a smaller distractor was used, the results differed. For target-absent trials, search speeds were slower when the distractor was present compared with when it was absent. Thus, it appears that a highly salient distractor might be needed to trigger a shift in visual search strategy, and subsequently, lower quitting thresholds.

Statistical distractor learning modulates perceptual sensitivity

The present study used perceptual sensitivity (d′) to determine the spatial distribution of attention in displays in which participants have learned to suppress a location that is most likely to contain a distractor. Participants had to indicate whether a horizontal or a vertical line, which was shown only briefly before it was masked, was present within a target shape. Critically, the target shape could be accompanied by a singleton distractor color, which when present appeared with a high probability at one display location. The results show that perceptual sensitivity was reduced for locations likely to contain a distractor, as d′ was lower for this location than for all other locations in the display. We also found that the presence of an irrelevant color singleton reduced the gain for input at the target location, particularly when the irrelevant singleton was close to the target singleton. We conclude that, through the repeated encounter with a distractor at a particular location, the weights within the attentional priority map are changed such that the perceptual sensitivity for objects presented at that location is reduced relative to all other locations. This reduction of perceptual sensitivity signifies that this location competes less for attention than all other locations.

Spatially Guided Distractor Suppression during Visual Search

Past work has demonstrated that active suppression of salient distractors is a critical part of visual selection. Evidence for goal-driven suppression includes below-baseline visual encoding at the position of salient distractors (Gaspelin and Luck, 2018) and neural signals such as the distractor positivity (Pd) that track how many distractors are presented in a given hemifield (Feldmann-Wüstefeld and Vogel, 2019). One basic question regarding distractor suppression is whether it is inherently spatial or nonspatial in character. Indeed, past work has shown that distractors evoke both spatial (Theeuwes, 1992) and nonspatial forms of interference (Folk and Remington, 1998), motivating a direct examination of whether space is integral to goal-driven distractor suppression. Here, we use behavioral and EEG data from adult humans (male and female) to provide clear evidence for a spatial gradient of suppression surrounding salient singleton distractors. Replicating past work, both reaction time and neural indices of target selection improved monotonically as the distance between target and distractor increased. Importantly, these target selection effects were paralleled by a monotonic decline in the amplitude of the Pd, an electrophysiological index of distractor suppression. Moreover, multivariate analyses revealed spatially selective activity in the θ-band that tracked the position of the target and, critically, revealed suppressed activity at spatial channels centered on distractor positions. Thus, goal-driven selection of relevant over irrelevant information benefits from a spatial gradient of suppression surrounding salient distractors.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Past work has shown that distractor suppression is an important part of goal-driven attentional selection, but has not yet revealed whether suppression is spatially directed. Using behavioral data, event-related potentials (ERPs) of the EEG signal [N2pc and distractor positivity (Pd) component], as well as a multivariate model of EEG data [channel tuning functions (CTF)], we show that suppression-related neural activity increases monotonically as the distance between targets and distractors decreases, and that spatially-selective activity in the θ-band reveals depressed activity in spatial channels that index distractor positions. Thus, we provide robust evidence for spatially-guided distractor suppression, a result that has important implications for models of goal-driven attentional control.

Endogenous and exogenous control of visuospatial selective attention in freely behaving mice

Visuospatial selective attention has been investigated primarily in head-fixed animals and almost exclusively in primates. Here, we develop two human-inspired, discrimination-based behavioral paradigms for studying selective visuospatial attention in freely behaving mice. In the ‘spatial probability’ task, we find enhanced accuracy, sensitivity, and rate of evidence accumulation at the location with higher probability of target occurrence, and opposite effects at the lower probability location. Together with video-based 3D head-tracking, these results demonstrate endogenous expectation-driven shifts of spatial attention. In the ‘flanker’ task, we find that a second stimulus presented with the target, but with conflicting information, causes switch-like decrements in accuracy and sensitivity as a function of its contrast, and slower evidence accumulation, demonstrating exogenous capture of spatial attention. The ability to study primate-like selective attention rigorously in unrestrained mice opens a rich avenue for research into neural circuit mechanisms underlying this critical executive function in a naturalistic setting.

The authors describe behavioural tasks for the study of primate-like, endogenous and exogenous control of visuospatial selective attention in freely behaving mice.

Visual Selection: Usually Fast and Automatic; Seldom Slow and Volitional

Recently it was argued that in addition to top-down and bottom-up processes, lingering biases of selection history play a major role in visual selection (Awh, Belopolsky & Theeuwes, 2012). Since its publication there has been a growing controversy about the terms top-down, bottom-up and selection-history in relation to visual selection. In the current paper we define these terms, discuss some controversies about these terms and explain what kind of effects should be considered to be the result of lingering biases of selection history, i.e., priming, reward/fear, and statistical learning. We discuss the properties of top-down selection (slow, effortful, and controlled) versus the properties of lingering biases of selection history (fast, effortless, and automatic). We adhere the position that the experience with selecting a particular feature or the location of a feature, may boost and sharpen its representation within the priority selection map above and beyond its physical salience. It is as if the experience may render a feature or location subjectively more salient. Our message of the current review is that true top-down control of visual selection occurs far less often than what is typically assumed. Most of the time, selection is based on experience and history. It is fast, automatic and occurs without much, if any, effort.

Changing What You See by Changing What You Know: The Role of Attention

Attending is a cognitive process that incorporates a person's knowledge, goals, and expectations. What we perceive when we attend to one thing is different from what we perceive when we attend to something else. Yet, it is often argued that attentional effects do not count as evidence that perception is influenced by cognition. I investigate two arguments often given to justify excluding attention. The first is arguing that attention is a post-perceptual process reflecting selection between fully constructed perceptual representations. The second is arguing that attention as a pre-perceptual process that simply changes the input to encapsulated perceptual systems. Both of these arguments are highly problematic. Although some attentional effects can indeed be construed as post-perceptual, others operate by changing perceptual content across the entire visual hierarchy. Although there is a natural analogy between spatial attention and a change of input, the analogy falls apart when we consider other forms of attention. After dispelling these arguments, I make a case for thinking of attention not as a confound, but as one of the mechanisms by which cognitive states affect perception by going through cases in which the same or similar visual inputs are perceived differently depending on the observer's cognitive state, and instances where cuing an observer using language affects what one sees. Lastly, I provide two compelling counter-examples to the critique that although cognitive influences on perception can be demonstrated in the laboratory, it is impossible to really experience them for oneself in a phenomenologically compelling way. Taken together, the current evidence strongly supports the thesis that what we know routinely influences what we see, that the same sensory input can be perceived differently depending on the current cognitive state of the viewer, and that phenomenologically salient demonstrations are possible if certain conditions are met.

Localized Attentional Interference Affects Object Individuation, Not Feature Detection

Modern theorists conceptualize visual selective attention as a competition between object representations for the control of extrastriate receptive fields, an account supported by the finding that attentional selection of one stimulus can degrade processing of nearby stimuli. In the present study the conditions that produce reciprocal interference between attended stimuli are examined. Each display contained either no, one, or two feature-defined target items among an array of homogeneous distractors. Observers performed two tasks, feature detection and object individuation. The feature-detection task required observers to determine if any targets were present within the display. The object-individuation task required observers to determine if the number of targets was exactly two. Spatially mediated interference between target pairs occurred in the object-individuation task, but had no effect on feature detection. Results suggest that localized interference between attended stimuli occurs only when observers are required to resolve the features of individual objects, consistent with the competitive interaction models of attention.

Stimulus-driven capture and contingent capture

Whether or not certain physical events can capture attention has been one of the most debated issues in the study of attention. This discussion is concerned with how goal-directed and stimulus-driven processes interact in perception and cognition. On one extreme of the spectrum is the idea that attention capture is primarily stimulus driven and automatic. On the other end is the notion that attention capture is always contingent on the goals of the observer, and thus under top-down control. This review discusses the empirical evidence for each of these viewpoints and the theoretical consequences. In addition, there is a discussion of the issues that remain controversial within the debate between the two viewpoints. It is concluded that visual selection depends on the interaction between bottom-up and top-down processes with a special role for spatial attention as the top-down gatekeeper for attention capture. WIREs Cogn Sci 2010 1 872-881 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Distractors less salient than targets capture attention rather than producing non-spatial filtering costs

Distractors that are less salient than the target evoke reaction time interference in the distractor search paradigm. Here, we investigated whether this interference indeed results from spatial attentional capture or merely from non-spatial filtering costs. Target and distractor salience was manipulated parametrically and the modulation of reaction time interference by the distance between both stimuli was taken as an indicator of attentional capture. For distractors that were less salient than the target, we found distance to be predictive of reaction time interference. Moreover, this relationship was modulated by the difference in relative salience of target and distractor: the less salient the distractor was compared to the target, the weaker was the influence of distance. These results are in accordance with the sequential sampling model of salience-based selection by Zehetleitner et al. (Zehetleitner, M., Koch, A.I., Goschy, H., Müller, H.J., 2013. Salience-based selection: Interference by distractors less salient than the target. PLoS ONE 8: e52595.). This model assumes the salience map to be computed by noisy accumulation of sensory evidence. As a result, the salience map output fluctuates around its true value and less salient locations can be denoted as most salient. A distractor less salient than the target can therefore capture attention with a certain probability. We conclude that reaction time interference by less salient distractors in the distractor search paradigm is a result of attentional capture in a proportion of trials, rather than a result of non-spatial filtering costs.

The attentional effects of single cues and color singletons on visual sensitivity

Sudden changes in the visual periphery can automatically draw attention to their locations. For example, the brief flash of a single object (a "cue") rapidly enhances contrast sensitivity for subsequent stimuli in its vicinity. Feature singletons (e.g., a red circle among green circles) can also capture attention in a variety of tasks. Here, we evaluate whether a peripheral cue that enhances contrast sensitivity when it appears alone has a similar effect when it appears as a color singleton, with the same stimuli and task. In four experiments we asked observers to report the orientation of a target Gabor stimulus, which was preceded by an uninformative cue array consisting either of a single disk or of 16 disks containing a color or luminance singleton. Accuracy was higher and contrast thresholds lower when the single cue appeared at or near the target's location, compared with farther away. The color singleton also modulated performance but to a lesser degree and only when it appeared exactly at the target's location. Thus, this is the first study to demonstrate that cueing by color singletons, like single cues, can enhance sensory signals at an early stage of processing.

Automatic control of visual selection

This paper seeks out to reduce the role of the homunculus, the 'little man in the head' that is still prominent in most psychological theories regarding the control our behaviour. We argue that once engaged in a task (which is a volitional act), visual selection run off more or less in an automatic fashion. We argue that the salience map that drives automatic selection is not only determined by raw physical salience of the objects in the environment but also by the way these objects appear to the person. We provide evidence that priming (feature priming, priming by working memory and reward priming) sharpens the cortical representation of these objects such that these objects appear to be more salient above and beyond their physical salience. We demonstrate that this type of priming is not under volitional control: it occurs even if observers try to volitionally prepare for something else. In other words, looking at red prepares our brain for things that are red even if we volitionally try to prepare for green.

When emotion blinds: a spatiotemporal competition account of emotion-induced blindness

Emotional visual scenes are such powerful attractors of attention that they can disrupt perception of other stimuli that appear soon afterward, an effect known as emotion-induced blindness. What mechanisms underlie this impact of emotion on perception? Evidence suggests that emotion-induced blindness may be distinguishable from closely related phenomena such as the orienting of spatial attention to emotional stimuli or the central resource bottlenecks commonly associated with the attentional blink. Instead, we suggest that emotion-induced blindness reflects relatively early competition between targets and emotional distractors, where spontaneous prioritization of emotional stimuli leads to suppression of competing perceptual representations potentially linked to an overlapping point in time and space.

Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection

The present paper argues for the notion that when attention is spread across the visual field in the first sweep of information through the brain visual selection is completely stimulus-driven. Only later in time, through recurrent feedback processing, volitional control based on expectancy and goal set will bias visual selection in a top-down manner. Here we review behavioral evidence as well as evidence from ERP, fMRI, TMS and single cell recording consistent with stimulus-driven selection. Alternative viewpoints that assume a large role for top-down processing are discussed. It is argued that in most cases evidence supporting top-down control on visual selection in fact demonstrates top-down control on processes occurring later in time, following initial selection. We conclude that top-down knowledge regarding non-spatial features of the objects cannot alter the initial selection priority. Only by adjusting the size of the attentional window, the initial sweep of information through the brain may be altered in a top-down way.

The limits of top-down control of visual attention

The extent to which spatial selection is driven by the goals of the observer and by the properties of the environment is one of the major issues in the field of visual attention. Here we review recent experimental evidence from behavioral and eye movement studies suggesting that top-down control has temporal and spatial limits. More specifically, we argue that the first feedforward sweep of information is bottom-up, and that top-down control can influence selection only after the sweep is completed. In addition, top-down control can limit spatial selection through adjusting the size of attentional window, an area of visual space which receives priority in information sampling. Finally, we discuss the evidence found using brain imaging techniques for top-down control in an attempt to reconcile it with behavioral findings. We conclude by discussing theoretical implications of these results for the current models of visual selection.

Attentional capture in schizophrenia: failure to resist interference from motion signals

INTRODUCTION

Patients with schizophrenia show high susceptibility to distraction but the neural mechanisms underlying sensitivity to distraction are not clearly established. We designed a paradigm to assess whether sensitivity to distraction and dorsal stream dysfunction are related in schizophrenia.

METHOD

60 patients, 37 schizotypals, and 58 healthy controls were asked to locate a target square appearing above or below fixation and to ignore a distractor that either moved abruptly (in Experiments 1 and 3) or changed in colour (in Experiment 2). The distractor condition was compared to a baseline condition with no distractor. Resistance to interference was assessed by manipulating the probability of the distractor changing more frequently (50%, 75%, 100%) on one side of fixation.

RESULTS

Patients, schizotypals, and controls showed attentional capture with longer response times when the distractor changed as compared to the baseline condition. In contrast to controls, the magnitude of interference from distractors remained stable for patients and schizotypals across all probability conditions and this was confined to attentional capture by motion, not by colour.

CONCLUSION

We found a similar pattern of results in patients and in schizotypals. Our attentional capture paradigm could help to identify early cognitive impairments in populations at risk to develop schizophrenia. The data are interpreted in terms of dysfunction of frontal control on dorsal stream functions in schizophrenia.

Perceptual load affects spatial and nonspatial visual selection processes: an event-related brain potential study

One major question toward understanding selective attention regards the efficiency of selection. One theory contends that this efficiency in vision is determined primarily by the perceptual load (PL) imposed by the relevant stimuli; if this load is high enough to fill attentional capacity, irrelevant stimuli will be excluded before they interfere with task performance, but if this load is lower the spare capacity will be directed automatically to the irrelevant information, which will then interfere with task performance. The current study attempts to test and extend this theory in order to understand better the role of PL by examining its effects on event-related brain potentials (ERPs), voltage fluctuations recorded at the scalp that reflect underlying cognitive operations. Stimuli were presented one at a time, and subjects were instructed to respond to rare deviant stimuli that appeared within a relevant stimulus channel and to ignore stimuli in an irrelevant channel, where channel was defined by either spatial (left, right) or nonspatial (red, blue) attributes in separate tasks. PL was manipulated by varying the similarity between the target/deviant and standard stimulus, and increases in PL were found to increase the magnitude of the relevant-irrelevant difference waveforms in both tasks at predicted temporal windows. These findings suggest that PL affects attentional selection that is tonically maintained across many experimental trials, and does so not only when selection is spatially based but also when it is based upon nonspatial cues.

Spatially mediated capacity limits in attentive visual perception

Modern theories conceptualize visual selective attention as a competition between objects for the control of cortical receptive fields (RFs). Implicit in this framework is the suggestion that spatially proximal objects, which draw from overlapping pools of RFs, should be more difficult to represent in parallel and with excess capacity than spatially separated objects. The present experiments tested this prediction using analysis of response time distributions in a redundant-targets letter identification task. Data revealed that excess-capacity parallel processing is possible when redundant targets are widely separated within the visual field, but that capacity is near fixed when targets are adjacent. Even at the largest separations tested, however, processing capacity remained strongly limited.

Attentional templates regulate competitive interactions among attended visual objects

In two experiments, we examined the mechanisms responsible for creating a zone of interference surrounding an attended visual object (see, e.g., Mounts & Gavett, 2004). In Experiment 1, the similarity between attended stimuli and noise items was manipulated in order to contrast an account based on competitive interactions between attended items with an account based on inefficient filtering of unattended stimuli. Consistent with the competitive interaction account, the data revealed that similarity between attended items increased the strength of localized interference, whereas similarity of noise items to the attended stimuli did not. Experiment 2 showed that the interference observed between attended items was determined by their match to attentional templates.

Displaywide visual features associated with a search display’s appearance can mediate attentional capture

Whether or not the capture of visual attention is driven solely by the salience of an attention-capturing stimulus or mediated by top-down control has been a point of contention since Folk, Remington, and Johnston (1992) introduced their contingent involuntary orienting hypothesis, which states that the capture of attention by a salient stimulus depends on its relevance to a feature distinguishing the target from nontargets. Gibson and Kelsey (1998) extended Folk et al.'s (1992) hypothesis by demonstrating that features associated with the appearance of the target display also mediate capture. Although similar to Folk et al. (1992), Gibson and Kelsey's displaywide contingent orienting hypothesis makes it difficult to demonstrate stimulus-driven capture, because an observer must always use some perceptible feature as a signal of the target display's appearance; hence, such features could always be mediating capture. The present article reviews and applies the logic of Gibson and Kelsey's and Folk et al.'s (1992) hypotheses to experiments from the attentional capture literature, and assesses whether previously reported capture effects were mediated by top-down attentional control. It concludes that these capture effects were not stimulus-driven.

LIP responses to a popout stimulus are reduced if it is overtly ignored

Bright objects capture our attention by virtue of 'popping out' from their surroundings. This correlates with strong responses in cortical areas thought to be important in attentional allocation. Previous studies have suggested that with the right mindset or training, humans can ignore popout stimuli. We studied the activity of neurons in monkey lateral intraparietal area while monkeys performed a visual search task. The monkeys were free to move their eyes, and a distractor, but never the search target, popped out. On trials in which the monkeys made a saccade directly to the search target, the popout distractor evoked a smaller response than the non-popout distractors. The intensity of the response to the popout correlated inversely with the monkeys' ability to ignore it. We suggest that this modulation corresponds to a top-down mechanism that the brain uses to adjust the parietal representation of salience.

Spatial and feature-based effects of exogenous cueing on visual motion processing

In two experiments, we investigated the effects of exogenous cueing on visual motion processing. The first experiment shows that the typical pattern of reaction time (RT) effects, namely early facilitation and later inhibition of return (IOR), can be obtained using a color change as exogenous cue and a direction change as target. In the second experiment, we manipulated the validity of the cue independently with respect to location and feature using transparent motion stimuli. Facilitation of RTs with short cue-target interstimulus-intervals (ISIs) was only evident for targets with both the valid location and the valid feature. Furthermore, at longer cue-target intervals, RTs were prolonged for targets at the cued location, irrespective of the cued feature. These results demonstrate spatial and feature-based components of early facilitation and purely spatial IOR.

Attentional capture and inhibition (of return): the effect on perceptual sensitivity

The present study was designed to determine the spatial distribution of attention in displays in which an irrelevant color singleton was present. The results show that at the location of an irrelevant singleton, there is, first, an increased sensitivity (d'), followed later by a reduced sensitivity. The increased sensitivity implies that, first, the irrelevant singleton captured spatial attention, producing an increased sensory gain for input at the irrelevant distractor location. The later-occurring, reduced sensitivity implies the operation of inhibitory processes, possibly related to inhibition of return.