Oculomotor suppression of abrupt onsets versus color singletons

Attentional suppression of dynamic versus static salient distractors

Attention must be carefully controlled to avoid distraction by salient stimuli. The signal suppression hypothesis proposes that salient stimuli can be proactively suppressed to prevent distraction. Although this hypothesis has garnered much support, most previous studies have used one class of salient distractors: color singletons. It therefore remains unclear whether other kinds of salient distractors can also be suppressed. The current study directly compared suppression of a variety of salient stimuli using an attentional capture task that was adapted for eye tracking. The working hypothesis was that static salient stimuli (e.g., color singletons) would be easier to suppress than dynamic salient stimuli (e.g., motion singletons). The results showed that participants could ignore a wide variety of salient distractors. Importantly, suppression was weaker and slower to develop for dynamic salient stimuli than static salient stimuli. A final experiment revealed that adding a static salient feature to a dynamic motion distractor greatly improved suppression. Altogether, the results suggest that an underlying inhibitory process is applied to all kinds of salient distractors, but that suppression is more readily applied to static features than dynamic features.

Terms of debate: Consensus definitions to guide the scientific discourse on visual distraction

Hypothesis-driven research rests on clearly articulated scientific theories. The building blocks for communicating these theories are scientific terms. Obviously, communication - and thus, scientific progress - is hampered if the meaning of these terms varies idiosyncratically across (sub)fields and even across individual researchers within the same subfield. We have formed an international group of experts representing various theoretical stances with the goal to homogenize the use of the terms that are most relevant to fundamental research on visual distraction in visual search. Our discussions revealed striking heterogeneity and we had to invest much time and effort to increase our mutual understanding of each other's use of central terms, which turned out to be strongly related to our respective theoretical positions. We present the outcomes of these discussions in a glossary and provide some context in several essays. Specifically, we explicate how central terms are used in the distraction literature and consensually sharpen their definitions in order to enable communication across theoretical standpoints. Where applicable, we also explain how the respective constructs can be measured. We believe that this novel type of adversarial collaboration can serve as a model for other fields of psychological research that strive to build a solid groundwork for theorizing and communicating by establishing a common language. For the field of visual distraction, the present paper should facilitate communication across theoretical standpoints and may serve as an introduction and reference text for newcomers.

Swift attenuation of irrelevant features through feature consistency: Evidence from a capture-probe version of the contingent-capture protocol

In the present two experiments, we explore the possibility of swift attenuation of capture by irrelevant features in the contingent-capture protocol. Some prior research suggests that feature attenuation might be most efficient for fixed, anticipated irrelevant features and that varying irrelevant features from trial to trial can undermine their successful attenuation. Here, we exploited this dependence of attenuation on feature certainty to test if attenuation contributed to contingent-capture effects in a capture-probe version of the contingent-capture protocol. In line with the swift attenuation of irrelevant features, salient but target-dissimilar singleton cues that were consistently coloured diminished recall of probes at their locations. This was in comparison to inconsistently coloured target-dissimilar singleton cues. Nonetheless, probe-recall was still better at target-dissimilar cue locations than at non-singleton locations in the cueing display, indicating attenuation of task-irrelevant features rather than their complete suppression.

High visual salience of alert signals can lead to a counterintuitive increase of reaction times

It is often assumed that rendering an alert signal more salient yields faster responses to this alert. Yet, there might be a trade-off between attracting attention and distracting from task execution. Here we tested this in four behavioral experiments with eye-tracking using an abstract alert-signal paradigm. Participants performed a visual discrimination task (primary task) while occasional alert signals occurred in the visual periphery accompanied by a congruently lateralized tone. Participants had to respond to the alert before proceeding with the primary task. When visual salience (contrast) or auditory salience (tone intensity) of the alert were increased, participants directed their gaze to the alert more quickly. This confirms that more salient alerts attract attention more efficiently. Increasing auditory salience yielded quicker responses for the alert and primary tasks, apparently confirming faster responses altogether. However, increasing visual salience did not yield similar benefits: instead, it increased the time between fixating the alert and responding, as high-salience alerts interfered with alert-task execution. Such task interference by high-salience alert-signals counteracts their more efficient attentional guidance. The design of alert signals must be adapted to a "sweet spot" that optimizes this stimulus-dependent trade-off between maximally rapid attentional orienting and minimal task interference.

The Distractor Positivity Component and the Inhibition of Distracting Stimuli

There has been a long-lasting debate about whether salient stimuli, such as uniquely colored objects, have the ability to automatically distract us. To resolve this debate, it has been suggested that salient stimuli do attract attention but that they can be suppressed to prevent distraction. Some research supporting this viewpoint has focused on a newly discovered ERP component called the distractor positivity (PD), which is thought to measure an inhibitory attentional process. This collaborative review summarizes previous research relying on this component with a specific emphasis on how the PD has been used to understand the ability to ignore distracting stimuli. In particular, we outline how the PD component has been used to gain theoretical insights about how search strategy and learning can influence distraction. We also review alternative accounts of the cognitive processes indexed by the PD component. Ultimately, we conclude that the PD component is a useful tool for understanding inhibitory processes related to distraction and may prove to be useful in other areas of study related to cognitive control.

Does attentional suppression occur at the level of perception or decision-making? Evidence from Gaspelin et al.'s (2015) probe letter task

Visual attention is often inadvertently captured by salient stimuli. It was suggested that it is possible to prevent attentional capture in some search tasks by suppressing salient stimuli below baseline. Evidence for attentional suppression comes from a probe task that was interleaved with the main search task. In the probe task of Gaspelin et al. (Psychol Sci 26(11):1740-1750, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615597913 ), letters were shown on the stimuli of the search display and participants had to identify as many letters as possible. Performance was found to be worse for letters shown on the distractor compared to non-salient non-target stimuli, suggesting that distractor processing was suppressed below baseline. However, it is unclear whether suppression occurred at the level of perception or decision-making because participants may have reported letters on the distractor less frequently than letters on nontargets. This decision-level bias may have degraded performance for letters on distractor compared to nontarget stimuli without changing perception. After replicating the original findings, we conducted two experiments where we avoided report bias by cueing only a single letter for report. We found that the difference between distractor and nontarget stimuli was strongly reduced, suggesting that decision-level processes contribute to attentional suppression. In contrast, the difference between target and non-target stimuli was unchanged, suggesting that it reflected perceptual-level enhancement of the target stimuli.

Age-related differences in frontoparietal activation for target and distractor singletons during visual search

Age-related decline in visual search performance has been associated with different patterns of activation in frontoparietal regions using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), but whether these age-related effects represent specific influences of target and distractor processing is unclear. Therefore, we acquired event-related fMRI data from 68 healthy, community-dwelling adults ages 18-78 years, during both conjunction (T/F target among rotated Ts and Fs) and feature (T/F target among Os) search. Some displays contained a color singleton that could correspond to either the target or a distractor. A diffusion decision analysis indicated age-related increases in sensorimotor response time across all task conditions, but an age-related decrease in the rate of evidence accumulation (drift rate) was specific to conjunction search. Moreover, the color singleton facilitated search performance when occurring as a target and disrupted performance when occurring as a distractor, but only during conjunction search, and these effects were independent of age. The fMRI data indicated that decreased search efficiency for conjunction relative to feature search was evident as widespread frontoparietal activation. Activation within the left insula mediated the age-related decrease in drift rate for conjunction search, whereas this relation in the FEF and parietal cortex was significant only for individuals younger than 30 or 44 years, respectively. Finally, distractor singletons were associated with significant parietal activation, whereas target singletons were associated with significant frontoparietal deactivation, and this latter effect increased with adult age. Age-related differences in frontoparietal activation therefore reflect both the overall efficiency of search and the enhancement from salient targets.

A new technique for estimating the probability of attentional capture

Latency-based metrics of attentional capture are limited: They indicate whether or not capture occurred, but they do not indicate how often capture occurred. The present study introduces a new technique for estimating the probability of capture. In a spatial cueing paradigm, participants searched for a target letter defined by color while attempting to ignore salient cues that were drawn in either a relevant or irrelevant color. The results demonstrated the typical contingent capture effect: larger cue validity effects from relevant cues than irrelevant cues. Importantly, using a novel analytical approach, we were able to estimate the probability that the salient cue captured attention. This approach revealed a surprisingly low probability of attentional capture in the spatial cuing paradigm. Relevant cues are thought to be one of the strongest attractors of attention, yet they were estimated to capture attention on only about 30% of trials. This new metric provides an index of capture strength that can be meaningfully compared across different experimental contexts, which was not possible until now.

Novel tests of capture by irrelevant abrupt onsets: No evidence for a mediating role of search task difficulty during color search

According to the attentional dwelling hypothesis, task-irrelevant abrupt-onset cues capture attention in a stimulus-driven way by eliciting spatial shifts and further dwelling at cue position until target onset. Consequently, search can be facilitated for targets at cued locations relative to uncued locations. Critically, effects of stimulus-driven capture can go undetected in mean reaction times and error rates when search is too easy. In contrast, according to the priority accumulation framework (PAF), cueing effects for task-irrelevant cues differ from cueing effects by task-relevant cues. Most critically, cueing effects by irrelevant cues do not necessarily index spatial shifts and more dwelling but rather retrieval of cueing information. We used both behavioral measures (i.e., cueing effects and distractor compatibility effects) and event-related potentials on direct visual orienting activity elicited by the cue (Experiment 2) as well as consequences on target processing (Experiment 1) to investigate whether task-irrelevant abrupt onsets elicited attention shifts and led to further dwelling. We found behavioral support for attentional effects of task-irrelevant cues, surprisingly, however, only when search displays remained on-screen until response. We found no support for the attentional dwelling hypothesis or for PAF in the size of cueing effects as a function of search difficulty. Critically, lateralized ERPs revealed that salience of abrupt onsets per se is not sufficient to elicit spatial shifts during color search. Finally, neurophysiological evidence demonstrates that choices toward the implementation of experimental protocols can dramatically alter behavioral results on attentional effects of salient, but task-irrelevant abrupt onsets and conclusions drawn from them.