Testing the underlying processes leading to learned distractor rejection: Learned oculomotor avoidance

Evidence that proactive distractor suppression does not require attentional resources

Does the suppression of irrelevant visual features require attentional resources? McDonald et al. (2023, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30, 224-234) proposed that suppression processes are unavailable while a person is busy performing another task. They reported the absence of the PD (believed to index suppression) when two tasks were presented close together in time. We looked for converging evidence using established behavior measures of suppression. Following McDonald et al., our participants performed a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task followed by a search task. For the RSVP task, participants determined whether the target digit 4 or 6 appeared within a string of other digits. The search display appeared at a lag of 2 or 8 digits after the RSVP target. Participants searched for a yellow target circle amongst nine background circles, which included a uniquely colored distractor for some trials. The main question was whether distractor suppression would occur at Lag 2, while attentional resources were still processing the RSVP target. Suppression was assessed using the capture-probe paradigm. On 30% of trials, probe letters appeared inside the colored circles and participants reported those letters. Probe recall accuracy was lower at locations with distractor colors than those with neutral colors (the baseline), suggesting proactive suppression. Critically, this difference in probe recall accuracy was similar at Lag 2 and Lag 8, suggesting that the ability to proactively suppress distractors remains intact while dual-tasking. We argue that although reactive suppression likely requires attentional resources, proactive suppression-an implicit process-does not.

Investigating the role of spatial filtering on distractor suppression

In recent years, evidence has accumulated towards a distractor suppression mechanism that enables efficient selection of targets in a visual search task. According to these findings, the search for a target is faster in the presence of a salient distractor in a display among homogenous distractors as opposed to its absence. Studies have also shown that distractor suppression not only operates on the feature level but can also be spatially guided. The motivation of the current study was to examine if spatially guided distractor suppression can be goal-driven. We tested this across four experiments. In Experiment 1A, the task was to search for a shape target (e.g., a circle) and discriminate the orientation of the line within it. In some trials, a salient color distractor was presented in the display while participants were told that it appeared in one of the two locations on the horizontal axis (or the vertical axis, counterbalanced across participants). We expected enhanced distractor suppression when the salient distractor appeared within this "spatial filter" but did not find it since the target was also presented at the filtered locations. Experiment 1B replicated Experiment 1A, except that the target was always presented outside the filter; filtering enhanced search performance. In Experiment 2 even when the filter contained the salient distractor in only 65% of the filtered trials, filtering benefited search performance. In Experiment 3, the filter changed on every trial and did not benefit suppression.

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.

Learned feature regularities enable suppression of spatially overlapping stimuli

Contemporary theories of attentional control state that information can be prioritized based on selection history. Even though theories agree that selection history can impact representations of spatial location, which in turn helps guide attention, there remains disagreement on whether nonspatial features (e.g., color) are modulated in a similar way. While previous work has demonstrated color suppression using visual search tasks, it is possible that the location corresponding to the distractor was suppressed, consistent with a spatial mechanism of suppression. Here, we sought to rule out this possibility by testing whether similar suppression of a learned distractor color can occur for spatially overlapping visual stimuli. On a given trial, two spatially superimposed stimuli (line arrays) were tilted either left or right of vertical and presented in one of four distinct colors. Subjects performed a speeded report of the orientation of the “target” array with the most lines. Critically, the distractor array was regularly one color, and this high-probability color was never the color of the target array, which encouraged learned suppression. In two experiments, responses to the target array were fastest when the distractor array was in the high-probability color, suggesting participants suppressed the distractor color. Additionally, when regularities were removed, the high-probability distractor color continued to benefit speeded target identification for individual subjects (E1) but slowed target identification (E2) when presented in the target array. Together, these results indicate that learned suppression of feature-based regularities modulates target detection performance independent of spatial location and persists over time.

Learned distractor rejection persists across target search in a different dimension

Attention is guided by several factors, including task-relevant target features, which attract attention, but also statistical regularities associated distractors, which repel attention away from themselves. However, whether feature-based distractor regularities (e.g., color) are extracted automatically from a feature dimension orthogonal to the target-guiding dimension (e.g., shape) remains to be tested. In two experiments, we tested if learned distractor rejection by color operated when color was not part of the attentional control settings, specifically, while attention was guided by a shape-based target template. Participants performed a visual search task for a task-relevant shape in displays containing two unsegregated colors. These displays allowed us to manipulate target guidance (based on shape) independently from distractor-based regularities (based on color). In both experiments we found clear evidence for learned distractor rejection: faster mean response times to locate the target when a consistent distractor color was present than when it was absent. Critically, these task-irrelevant learned distractor rejection effects were robust despite strong target guidance by an orthogonal search dimension. These findings corroborate recent demonstrations of learned distractor rejection during strong target guidance, indicating that learned distractor rejection and target guidance can operate on separate feature dimensions.

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.