Control over attentional capture within 170 ms by long-term memory control settings: Evidence from the N2pc

Observers adopt attentional control settings (ACSs) based on their goals that guide the capture of attention: Searched-for stimuli capture attention, and stimuli that are not searched for do not. While previous behavioural research indicates that observers can adopt long-term memory (LTM) ACSs (Giammarco et al. Visual Cognition, 24, 78-101, 2016), it seems surprising that representations in LTM could guide attention quickly enough to control attentional capture. To assess the claim that LTM ACSs exert control over early attentional orienting, we recorded electroencephalography while participants studied and searched for 30 target objects in an attention cueing task. Participants reported the studied target and ignored the preceding cues. To control for perceptual evoked responses, on each trial we presented two cue objects (one studied and one nonstudied). Even though participants were instructed to ignore the cues, studied cues produced the N2pc event-related potential, indicating early attentional orienting that was preferentially directed towards the studied cue versus the nonstudied cue. Critically, the N2pc was detectable within 170 ms, confirming that LTM ACSs rapidly control early capture. We propose an update to contemporary models of attentional capture to account for rapid attentional guidance by LTM ACSs.

Does temperament have a differential effect on Inhibition of Return (IOR)?

Reaction times to targets presented at previously stimulated locations are longer after some time (approx. 300 ms) than to targets presented in new locations. This effect is widely known as Inhibition of Return (IOR). It is typically explained in terms of an inhibitory bias against returning attention to places previously attended to and thus promoting attentional activity elsewhere. Regardless of its attentional character, IOR seems to encapsulate the interaction between two fundamental dimensions of temperament: engaging in versus inhibition and withdrawal from activity. Approaching IOR in this perspective, the question has arisen as to whether individual differences in reactivity as a temperamental trait express themselves in the time course and magnitude of this effect. 90 subjects (30 low, 30 medium and 30 highly reactive individuals) participated in the study. To the best of our knowledge, there are no other studies of individual differences in these parameters of IOR that use saccadic responses to measure its effect on behavior. The results show that in individuals who are higher in terms of their reactivity, IOR starts earlier and continues at the following SOAs but its magnitude is smaller than in less reactive individuals. The results are explained and discussed in light of the Regulative Theory of Temperament. This is the final version of the Abstract which has been accepted in the revised manuscript.