The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and When Not?

The adaptive global effect: Luminance contrast modulates the global effect zone

When two peripheral objects are presented in close proximity, saccades towards one of these objects land at a weighted average location between the two objects. This phenomenon, known as the 'global effect' or 'saccade averaging', disappears when the distance between the objects increases. When objects are further apart, outside the averaging zone, saccades land on one of the objects with little or no saccade averaging. Although it is known that the strength of the global effect is dependent on the specific features of the two objects, it is unclear if the size of the zone in which averaging can occur (i.e., the averaging zone) is adaptive. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether the size of the averaging zone adapts to variations in object luminance contrast of the objects. In order to systematically assess changes in the averaging zone, in two experiments, observers made saccadic eye movements while the luminance of the target and the distractor varied. We report three major findings: 1) When a distractor was more luminant relative to the target, the averaging zone increased (Exp. 1). Notably, saccade averaging never entirely ceased to exist, even for remote distractors. 2) When target and distractor were equiluminant, the averaging zone did not change with absolute luminance (Exp. 2). 3) Higher (relative and absolute) luminance increased the averaging zone especially for shorter saccadic response times (SRT). We conclude that the averaging zone is adaptive and becomes larger with increasing relative luminance and especially when SRTs are short.

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.

Relative saliency affects attentional capture and suppression of color and face singleton distractors: evidence from event-related potential studies

Prior research has yet to fully elucidate the impact of varying relative saliency between target and distractor on attentional capture and suppression, along with their underlying neural mechanisms, especially when social (e.g. face) and perceptual (e.g. color) information interchangeably serve as singleton targets or distractors, competing for attention in a search array. Here, we employed an additional singleton paradigm to investigate the effects of relative saliency on attentional capture (as assessed by N2pc) and suppression (as assessed by PD) of color or face singleton distractors in a visual search task by recording event-related potentials. We found that face singleton distractors with higher relative saliency induced stronger attentional processing. Furthermore, enhancing the physical salience of colors using a bold color ring could enhance attentional processing toward color singleton distractors. Reducing the physical salience of facial stimuli by blurring weakened attentional processing toward face singleton distractors; however, blurring enhanced attentional processing toward color singleton distractors because of the change in relative saliency. In conclusion, the attentional processes of singleton distractors are affected by their relative saliency to singleton targets, with higher relative saliency of singleton distractors resulting in stronger attentional capture and suppression; faces, however, exhibit some specificity in attentional capture and suppression due to high social saliency.

Microsaccades reflect attention shifts: a mini review of 20 years of microsaccade research

Microsaccades are small, involuntary eye movements that occur during fixation. Since the 1950s, researchers have conducted extensive research on the role of microsaccades in visual information processing, and found that they also play an important role in human advanced visual cognitive activities. Research over the past 20 years further suggested that there is a close relationship between microsaccades and visual attention, yet lacking a timely review. The current article aims to provide a state-of-the-art review and bring microsaccades studies into the sight of attention research. We firstly introduce basic characteristics about microsaccades, then summarized the empirical evidence supporting the view that microsaccades can reflect both external (perception) and internal (working memory) attention shifts. We finally conclude and highlight three promising avenues for future research.

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.

The Attentional Window, Search Difficulty and Search Modes: A Reply to Commentaries on Theeuwes (2023)

With great pleasure I studied the commentaries of my esteemed colleagues to my opinion paper "The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We avoid Salient Distractors and When Not?" (Theeuwes, 2023). I thought the comments were to-the-point and provocative and I believe that these kinds of exchanges will help the field to move forward in this debate. I discuss the most pressing concerns in separate sections where I have grouped commonly raised issues.

Feature-blind attentional suppression of salient distractors

A recent paper has reported, for the first time, that people are capable of suppressing salient singleton distractors of unknown color if the search task requires them to search for the most prevalent of several shapes in the display. We identify here several potential limitations of the earlier findings. In particular, in the reported experiments, the likelihood of a salient distractor was higher than what is typically studied, the distractor object was similar in shape to the relevant objects, only two colors were studied, the distractor was consistently a fixed shape, and the distractor was always a unique shape different from the search targets. Each of these limitations leaves open some questions about the generality of the findings. We address each of the concerns here, and show, in five experiments, that the ability to suppress distractors of unknown color is a robust finding that is not compromised by the potential limitations identified. When searching for the most prevalent of several shapes in a display, people can indeed suppress capture by otherwise-salient color singleton distractors even when their color is not known in advance (i.e., in a feature-blind manner), facilitating efficient search. The experiments confirm the ability to suppress visual elements based on second-order (e.g., a unique color) or global salience information, and not merely based on first-order (e.g., a specific color) information.