Context and competition in the capture of visual attention

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.

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.

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.

Does feature intertrial priming guide attention? The jury is still out

Our search performance is strongly influenced by our past experience. In the lab, this influence has been demonstrated by investigating a variety of phenomena, including intertrial priming, statistical learning, and reward history, and collectively referred to as selection history. The resulting findings have led researchers to claim that selection history guides attention, thereby challenging the prevailing dichotomy, according to which top-down and bottom-up factors alone determine attentional priority. Here, we re-examine this claim with regard to one selection-history phenomenon, feature intertrial priming (aka priming of pop-out). We evaluate the evidence that specifically pertains to the role of feature intertrial priming in attentional guidance, rather than in later selective processes occurring after the target is found. We distinguish between the main experimental rationales, while considering the extent to which feature intertrial priming, as studied through different protocols, shares characteristics of top-down attention. We show that there is strong evidence that feature intertrial priming guides attention when the experimental protocol departs from the canonical paradigm and encourages observers to maintain the critical feature in visual working memory or to form expectations about the upcoming target. By contrast, the current evidence regarding the standard feature intertrial priming phenomenon is inconclusive. We propose directions for future research and suggest that applying the methodology used here in order to re-evaluate of the role of other selection history phenomena in attentional guidance should clarify the mechanisms underlying the strong impact of past experience on visual search performance.

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.

Reward expectation modulates N2pc for target selection: Electrophysiological evidence

In an electrophysiological experiment, we investigated the effect of reward expectation on the localized attentional interference effect using a cue-target paradigm, while event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded. A cue indicating the reward condition of each trial (incentive vs. non-incentive) was followed by the presentation of a search array containing two target items. Participants were asked to decide whether the two shape singletons (two triangles, two rectangles, or one triangle and one rectangle) among a set of circles were the same shape. Moreover, we manipulated the distance between the two targets to be adjacent to each other (Separation 1) or further apart (Separation 3 and Separation 5). Behavioral results revealed a larger reward facilitation effect for the larger target separation conditions. The N2pc component locked to the target display exhibited an interaction between reward expectation and the distance between the two targets. For non-incentive trials, the N2pc amplitude increased as the separation between the two targets increased; however, for incentive trials, the N2pc showed comparable amplitudes in the different target separation conditions. These results indicate that reward expectation regulated attentional focus to better resolve the competition between representation and selection of the two targets for acquiring possible reward outcomes.

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.

Post-capture processes contribute to statistical learning of distractor locations in visual search

People can learn to ignore salient distractors that occur frequently at particular locations, making them interfere less with task performance. This effect has been attributed to learnt suppression of the likely distractor locations at a pre-selective stage of attentional-priority computation. However, rather than distractors at frequent (vs rare) locations being just less likely to capture attention, attention may possibly also be disengaged faster from such distractors - a post-selective contribution to their reduced interference. Eye-movement studies confirm that learnt suppression, evidenced by a reduced rate of oculomotor capture by distractors at frequent locations, is a major factor, whereas the evidence is mixed with regard to a role of rapid disengagement However, methodological choices in these studies limited conclusions as to the contribution of a post-capture effect. Using an adjusted design, here we positively establish the rapid-disengagement effect, while corroborating the oculomotor-capture effect. Moreover, we examine distractor-location learning effects not only for distractors defined in a different visual dimension to the search target, but also for distractors defined within the same dimension, which are known to cause particularly strong interference and probability-cueing effects. Here, we show that both oculomotor-capture and disengagement dynamics contribute to this pattern. Additionally, on distractor-absent trials, the slowed responses to targets at frequent distractor locations-that we observe only in same-, but not different-, dimension conditions-arise pre-selectively, in prolonged latencies of the very first saccade. This supports the idea that learnt suppression is implemented at a different level of priority computation with same-versus different-dimension distractors.

Do Reward-Related Distractors Impair Cognitive Performance? Perhaps Not

Over a hundred prior studies show that reward-related distractors capture attention. It is less clear, however, whether and when reward-related distractors affect performance on tasks that require cognitive control. In this experiment, we examined whether reward-related distractors impair performance during a demanding arithmetic task. Participants (N = 81) solved math problems, while they were exposed to task-irrelevant stimuli that were previously associated with monetary rewards (vs. not). Although we found some evidence for reward learning in the training phase, results from the test phase showed no evidence that reward-related distractors harm cognitive performance. This null effect was invariant across different versions of our task. We examined the results further with Bayesian analyses, which showed positive evidence for the null. Altogether, the present study showed that reward-related distractors did not harm performance on a mental arithmetic task. When considered together with previous studies, the present study suggests that the negative impact of reward-related distractors on cognitive control is not as straightforward as it may seem, and that more research is needed to clarify the circumstances under which reward-related distractors harm cognitive control.

Overt and covert attention to location-based reward

Recent research on the impact of location-based reward on attentional orienting has indicated that reward factors play an influential role in spatial priority maps. The current study investigated whether and how reward associations based on spatial location translate from overt eye movements to covert attention. If reward associations can be tied to locations in space, and if overt and covert attention rely on similar overlapping neuronal populations, then both overt and covert attentional measures should display similar spatial-based reward learning. Our results suggest that location- and reward-based changes in one attentional domain do not lead to similar changes in the other. Specifically, although we found similar improvements at differentially rewarded locations during overt attentional learning, this translated to the least improvement at a highly rewarded location during covert attention. We interpret this as the result of an increased motivational link between the high reward location and the trained eye movement response acquired during learning, leading to a relative slowing during covert attention when the eyes remained fixated and the saccade response was suppressed. In a second experiment participants were not required to keep fixated during the covert attention task and we no longer observed relative slowing at the high reward location. Furthermore, the second experiment revealed no covert spatial priority of rewarded locations. We conclude that the transfer of location-based reward associations is intimately linked with the reward-modulated motor response employed during learning, and alternative attentional and task contexts may interfere with learned spatial priorities.

Evidence for an attentional component of inhibition of return in visual search

Inhibition of return (IOR) is typically described as an inhibitory bias against returning attention to a recently attended location as a means of promoting efficient visual search. Most studies examining IOR, however, either do not use visual search paradigms or do not effectively isolate attentional processes, making it difficult to conclusively link IOR to a bias in attention. Here, we recorded ERPs during a simple visual search task designed to isolate the attentional component of IOR to examine whether an inhibitory bias of attention is observed and, if so, how it influences visual search behavior. Across successive visual search displays, we found evidence of both a broad, hemisphere-wide inhibitory bias of attention along with a focal, target location-specific facilitation. When the target appeared in the same visual hemifield in successive searches, responses were slower and the N2pc component was reduced, reflecting a bias of attention away from the previously attended side of space. When the target occurred at the same location in successive searches, responses were facilitated and the P1 component was enhanced, likely reflecting spatial priming of the target. These two effects are combined in the response times, leading to a reduction in the IOR effect for repeated target locations. Using ERPs, however, these two opposing effects can be isolated in time, demonstrating that the inhibitory biasing of attention still occurs even when response-time slowing is ameliorated by spatial priming.

The Dopamine Prediction Error: Contributions to Associative Models of Reward Learning

Phasic activity of midbrain dopamine neurons is currently thought to encapsulate the prediction-error signal described in Sutton and Barto’s (1981) model-free reinforcement learning algorithm. This phasic signal is thought to contain information about the quantitative value of reward, which transfers to the reward-predictive cue after learning. This is argued to endow the reward-predictive cue with the value inherent in the reward, motivating behavior toward cues signaling the presence of reward. Yet theoretical and empirical research has implicated prediction-error signaling in learning that extends far beyond a transfer of quantitative value to a reward-predictive cue. Here, we review the research which demonstrates the complexity of how dopaminergic prediction errors facilitate learning. After briefly discussing the literature demonstrating that phasic dopaminergic signals can act in the manner described by Sutton and Barto (1981), we consider how these signals may also influence attentional processing across multiple attentional systems in distinct brain circuits. Then, we discuss how prediction errors encode and promote the development of context-specific associations between cues and rewards. Finally, we consider recent evidence that shows dopaminergic activity contains information about causal relationships between cues and rewards that reflect information garnered from rich associative models of the world that can be adapted in the absence of direct experience. In discussing this research we hope to support the expansion of how dopaminergic prediction errors are thought to contribute to the learning process beyond the traditional concept of transferring quantitative value.

Effects of reward on oculomotor control

The present study examines the extent to which distractors that signal the availability of monetary reward on a given trial affect eye movements. We used a novel eye movement task in which observers had to follow a target around the screen while ignoring distractors presented at varying locations. We examined the effects of reward magnitude and distractor location on a host of oculomotor properties, including saccade latency, amplitude, landing position, curvature, and erroneous saccades toward the distractor. We found consistent effects of reward magnitude on classic oculomotor phenomena such as the remote distractor effect, the global effect, and oculomotor capture by the distractor. We also show that a distractor in the visual hemifield opposite to the target had a larger effect on oculomotor control than an equidistant distractor in the same hemifield as the target. Bayesian hierarchical drift diffusion modeling revealed large differences in drift rate depending on the reward value, location, and visual hemifield of the distractor stimulus. Our findings suggest that high reward distractors not only capture the eyes but also affect a multitude of oculomotor properties associated with oculomotor inhibition and control.

Probability cueing of distractor locations: both intertrial facilitation and statistical learning mediate interference reduction

Targets in a visual search task are detected faster if they appear in a probable target region as compared to a less probable target region, an effect which has been termed “probability cueing.” The present study investigated whether probability cueing cannot only speed up target detection, but also minimize distraction by distractors in probable distractor regions as compared to distractors in less probable distractor regions. To this end, three visual search experiments with a salient, but task-irrelevant, distractor (“additional singleton”) were conducted. Experiment 1 demonstrated that observers can utilize uneven spatial distractor distributions to selectively reduce interference by distractors in frequent distractor regions as compared to distractors in rare distractor regions. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that intertrial facilitation, i.e., distractor position repetitions, and statistical learning (independent of distractor position repetitions) both contribute to the probability cueing effect for distractor locations. Taken together, the present results demonstrate that probability cueing of distractor locations has the potential to serve as a strong attentional cue for the shielding of likely distractor locations.

Suppression of salient objects prevents distraction in visual search

To find objects of interest in a cluttered and continually changing visual environment, humans must often ignore salient stimuli that are not currently relevant to the task at hand. Recent neuroimaging results indicate that the ability to prevent salience-driven distraction depends on the current level of attentional control activity in frontal cortex, but the specific mechanism by which this control activity prevents salience-driven distraction is still poorly understood. Here, we asked whether salience-driven distraction is prevented by suppressing salient distractors or by preferentially up-weighting the relevant visual dimension. We found that salient distractors were suppressed even when they resided in the same feature dimension as the target (that is, when dimensional weighting was not a viable selection strategy). Our neurophysiological measure of suppression--the PD component of the event-related potential--was associated with variations in the amount of time it took to perform the search task: distractors triggered the PD on fast-response trials, but on slow-response trials they triggered activity associated with working memory representation instead. These results demonstrate that during search salience-driven distraction is mitigated by a suppressive mechanism that reduces the salience of potentially distracting visual objects.

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.