Distinct mechanisms of attentional suppression: exploration of trait factors underlying cued- and learned-suppression

Attention allows us to focus on relevant information while ignoring distractions. Effective suppression of distracting information is crucial for efficient visual search. Recent studies have developed two paradigms to investigate attentional suppression: cued-suppression which is based on top-down control, and learned-suppression which is based on selection history. While both types of suppression reportedly engage proactive control, it remains unclear whether they rely on shared mechanisms. This study aimed to determine the relationship between cued- and learned-suppression. In a within-subjects design, 54 participants performed a cued-suppression task where pre-cues indicated upcoming target or distractor colors, and a learned-suppression task where a salient color distractor was present or absent. No significant correlation emerged between performance in the two tasks, suggesting distinct suppression mechanisms. Cued-suppression correlated with visual working memory capacity, indicating reliance on explicit control. In contrast, learned-suppression correlated with everyday distractibility, suggesting implicit control based on regularities. These results provide evidence for heterogeneous proactive control mechanisms underlying cued- and learned-suppression. While both engage inhibition, cued-suppression relies on deliberate top-down control modulated by working memory, whereas learned-suppression involves implicit suppression shaped by selection history and distractibility traits.

Can templates-for-rejection suppress real-world affective objects in visual search?

Previous evidence has suggested that feature-based templates-for-rejection can be maintained in working memory to suppress matching features in the environment. Currently, this effect has only been demonstrated using abstract neutral shapes, meaning that it is unclear whether this generalizes to real-world images, including aversive stimuli. In the current investigation, participants searched amongst an array of real-world objects for a target, after being precued with either a distractor template, target template, or a no template baseline. In Experiment 1, where both distractor and target template cues were presented randomly on a trial-by-trial basis, there was moderate evidence of increased capture by aversive distractors after the distractor template cue. In Experiment 2a, however, when distractor templates were the only available cue and more time was given to encode the cue features, there was moderate evidence of effective distractor inhibition for real-world aversive and neutral stimuli. In Experiment 2b, when the task required a slower more effortful comparison of target features to stereotypical object representations, there was weaker evidence of inhibition, though there was still modest evidence suggesting effective inhibition of aversive distractors. A Bayesian meta-analysis revealed that across Experiment 2, aversive distractors showed strong cumulative evidence of effective inhibition, but inconsistent inhibition for neutral distractors. The results are interpreted from a rational search behaviour framework, which suggests that individuals utilize informative cues when they enable the most beneficial strategy and are accessible, and apply these to distractors when they cause sufficient disruption, either to search speed or emotional state.