On preventing capture: Does greater salience cause greater suppression?

The inhibitory effect of a recent distractor: singleton vs. multiple distractors

In the complex interplay between sensory and cognitive processes, the brain must sift through a flood of sensory data to pinpoint relevant signals. This selective mechanism is crucial for the effective control of behaviour, by allowing organisms to focus on important tasks and blocking out distractions. The Inhibition of a Recent Distractor (IRD) Task examines this selection process by exploring how inhibiting distractors influences subsequent eye movements towards an object in the visual environment. In a series of experiments, research by Crawford et al. (2005a) demonstrated a delayed response to a target appearing at the location that was previously occupied by a distractor, demonstrating a legacy inhibition exerted by the distractor on the spatial location of the upcoming target. This study aimed to replicate this effect and to investigate any potential constraints when multiple distractors are presented. Exploring whether the effect is observed in more ecologically relevant scenarios with multiple distractors is crucial for assessing the extent to which it can be applied to a broader range of environments. Experiment 1 successfully replicated the effect, showing a significant IRD effect only with a single distractor. Experiments 2-5 explored a number of possible explanations for this phenomenon.

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.