The inability to ignore auditory distractors as a function of visual task perceptual load

Using a response competition paradigm, we investigated the ability to ignore target response-compatible, target response-incompatible, and neutral visual and auditory distractors presented during a visual search task. The perceptual load model of attention (e.g., Lavie & Tsal, 1994) states that task-relevant processing load determines irrelevant distractor processing in such a way that increasing processing load prevents distractor processing. In three experiments, participants searched sets of one (easy search) or six (hard search) similar items. In Experiment 1, visual distractors influenced reaction time (RT) and accuracy only for easy searches, following the perceptual load model. Surprisingly, auditory distractors yielded larger distractor compatibility effects (median RT for incompatible trials minus median RT for compatible trials) for hard searches than for easy searches. In Experiments 2 and 3, during hard searches, consistent RT benefits with response-compatible and RT costs with response-incompatible auditory distractors occurred only for hard searches. We suggest that auditory distractors are processed regardless of visual perceptual load but that the ability to inhibit cross-modal influence from auditory distractors is reduced under high visual load.     

Ignoring famous faces: category-specific dilution of distractor interference

The extent to which famous distractor faces can be ignored was assessed in six experiments. Subjects categorized famous printed target names as those of pop stars or politicians, while attempting to ignore a flanking famous face distractor that could be congruent (e.g, a politician's name and face) or incongruent (e.g., a politician's name with a pop stars face). Congruency effects on reaction times indicated distractor intrusion. An additional, response-neutral flanker (neither pop star nor politician) could also be present. Congruency effects from the critical distractor face were reduced (diluted) by the presence of an intact anonymous face, but not by phase-shifted versions, inverted faces, or meaningful nonface objects. By contrast, congruency effects from other types of distracting objects (musical instruments, fruits), when printed names for these classes were categorized, were diluted equivalently by intact faces, phase-shifted faces, or meaningful nonface objects. Our results suggest that distractor faces act differently from other types of distractors, suffering from only face-specific capacity limits.     

Perceptual load effects on processing distractor faces indicate face-specific capacity limits

The claim that face perception is mediated by a specialized “face module” that proceeds automatically, independently of attention (e.g., Kanwisher, 2000) can be reconciled with load theory claims that visual perception has limited capacity (e.g., Lavie, 1995) by hypothesizing that face perception has face-specific capacity limits. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the effects of face and nonface perceptual load on distractor face processing. Participants searched a central array of either faces or letter strings for a pop star versus politician's face or name and made speeded classification responses. Perceptual load was varied through the relevant search set size. Response competition effects from a category-congruent or -incongruent peripheral distractor face were eliminated with more than two faces in the face search task, but were unaffected by perceptual load in the name search task. These results support the hypothesis that face perception has face-specific capacity limits and resolve apparent discrepancies in previous research.     

Irrelevant objects of expertise compete with faces during visual search

Prior work suggests that nonface objects of expertise can interfere with the perception of faces when the two categories are alternately presented, suggesting competition for shared perceptual resources. Here, we ask whether task-irrelevant distractors from a category of expertise compete when faces are presented in a standard visual search task. Participants searched for a target (face or sofa) in an array containing both relevant and irrelevant distractors. The number of distractors from the target category (face or sofa) remained constant, whereas the number of distractors from the irrelevant category (cars) varied. Search slopes, calculated as a function of the number of irrelevant cars, were correlated with car expertise. The effect was not due to car distractors grabbing attention, because they did not compete with sofa targets. Objects of expertise interfere with face perception even when they are task irrelevant, visually distinct, and separated in space from faces.     

Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention

The effects of perceptual load and those of target-stimulus degradation on distractor processing were contrasted. Targets either had to be found among several nontargets (high perceptual load) or were presented alone and were intact (low perceptual load), had reduced size and contrast (Experiment 1), had reduced duration and were followed by a mask (Experiment 2), or had reduced visual acuity owing to position eccentricity (Experiment 3) in the degraded low-load condition. The results showed that both high perceptual load and target degradation increased general task difficulty, as is reflected by overall reaction times and accuracy. However, whereas high perceptual load reduced response-competition effects of irrelevant distractors, target degradation increased distractor effects. These results support the hypothesis that distractor processing depends on the extent to which high perceptual load exhausts attention in relevant processing and provide a dissociation between perceptual load and general task difficulty and processing speed.     

Interference from familiar natural distractors is not eliminated by high perceptual load

A crucial prediction of perceptual load theory is that high perceptual load can eliminate interference from distractors. However, Lavie et al. (Psychol Sci 14:510–515, 2003) found that high perceptual load did not eliminate interference when the distractor was a face. The current experiments examined the interaction between familiarity and perceptual load in modulating interference in a name search task. The data reveal that high perceptual load eliminated the interference effect for unfamiliar distractors that were faces or objects, but did not eliminate the interference for familiar distractors that were faces or objects. Based on these results, we proposed that the processing of familiar and natural stimuli may be immune to the effect of perceptual load.     

Similarity modulates the face-capturing effect in change detection

We investigated whether similarity among faces could modulate the face-capturing effect in change detection. In Experiment 1, a singleton search task was used to demonstrate that a face stimulus captures attention and the odd-one-out hypothesis cannot account for the results. Searching for a face target was faster than searching for a nonface target no matter whether distractor–distractor similarity was low or high. The fast search, however, did not lead to a face-detection advantage in Experiment 2 when the pre- and postchange faces were highly similar. When participants in Experiment 3 had to divide their attention between two faces in stimulus displays for change detection, detection performance was worse than performance in detecting nonface changes. The face-capturing effect alone is insufficient to produce the face-detection advantage. Face processing is efficient but its effect on performance depends on the stimulus–task context.     

Failures to ignore entirely irrelevant distractors: the role of load

In daily life (e.g., in the work environment) people are often distracted by stimuli that are clearly irrelevant to the current task and should be ignored. In contrast, much applied distraction research has focused on task interruptions by information that requires a response and therefore cannot be ignored. Moreover, the most commonly used laboratory measures of distractibility (e.g., in the response-competition and attentional-capture paradigms), typically involve distractors that are task relevant (e.g., through response associations or location). A series of experiments assessed interference effects from stimuli that are entirely unrelated to the current task, comparing the effects of perceptual load on task-irrelevant and task-relevant (response competing) distractors. The results showed that an entirely irrelevant distractor can interfere with task performance to the same extent as a response-competing distractor and that, as with other types of distractors, the interfering effects of the irrelevant distractors can be eliminated with high perceptual load in the relevant task. These findings establish a new laboratory measure of a form of distractibility common to everyday life and highlight load as an important determinant of such distractibility.     

知觉负载对负性分心面孔的知觉加工和记忆的影响

本研究采用视觉搜索和意外再认记忆任务,结合事件相关电位技术,考察知觉负载对负性分心面孔的知觉加工和记忆的影响。在视觉搜索任务中,行为上恐惧分心面孔在高负载下干扰任务。ERP结果上,恐惧比中性分心面孔诱发更大的N170和N250;在低负载下恐惧比中性分心面孔诱发更大的N700,在高负载下没有差异。在意外再认记忆中,个体对低负载下的恐惧分心面孔表现出记忆。这些结果说明负性分心物在早期是自动化加工;晚期加工受知觉负载的调节,负载越低对负性分心物的过滤越少,存在对负性分心物的记忆偏向。     

Distractor effects during processing of words under load

The perceptual load model of attention (Lavie, 1995) suggests that processing of irrelevant distractors depends on the extent to which a relevant task engages full perceptual capacity. Word recognition models suggest that letter perception is facilitated in words relative to nonwords. These models led us to hypothesize that increasing the number of letters would increase perceptual load more for nonwords than for words, and thus would be more likely to exhaust capacity and eliminate distractor processing for nonwords than for words. In support of this hypothesis, we found that increasing the number of search letters increases RTs more for nonwords than for words and only reduces distractor interference for nonwords. Thus, although readers process words more efficiently than nonwords, they also become more prone to distraction when processing words.     

Capacity limits for face processing

We present three experiments in which subjects were asked to make speeded sex judgements (Experiment 1) or semantic judgements (Experiments 2 and 3) to face targets and nonface items, while ignoring a solitary flanking distractor face or a nonface stimulus. Distractors could be either congruent (same response category) or incongruent (different response category) with the target. Distractor congruency effects were consistently observed in all combinations of target-distractor stimulus pairs, except when a distractor face flanked a target face. The failure to find congruency effects in this condition was explored further in a fourth experiment, in which four task-irrelevant flankers were simultaneously presented. Once again, no face-face congruency effects were found, even though comparison distractors interfered with face and nonface targets alike. However, four simultaneously presented distractor faces did not interfere with nonface targets either. We suggest that these experiments demonstrate a capacity limit for visual processing in these conditions, such that no more than one face is processed at a time.     

Proactive inhibitory control of emotional distractors: Evidence for the benefit of precuing emotional distractors

The present study investigated the role of proactive inhibitory control in processing emotional distractors by examining the benefit of precuing the following emotional distractor. In Experiments 1A and 1B, an emotional flanker task was used while schematic emotional faces were presented as targets and distractors. We found the benefit of precuing the emotional distractor. In Experiment 2, the precue could not predict the following emotional distractor. The benefit of precuing the emotional distractor diminished, suggesting that the benefit was not due to reactive inhibition of the precued distractor. In Experiments 3A and 3B, an emotional Stroop task was used while schematic emotional faces were presented as distractors. The benefit of precuing the emotional distractors was observed when these distractors were emotional faces but not observed when the distractors were scrambled faces. These findings suggested that the benefit of precuing the emotional distractors operates at the emotional level.     

Processing overlap-dependent distractor dilution rather than perceptual target load determines attentional selectivity

The perceptual load theory of attentional selection argues that the degree to which distractors interfere with target processing is determined by the “perceptual load” (or discrimination difficulty) of target processing: when perceptual load is low, distractors interfere to a greater extent than when it is high. A well-known exception is load-independent interference effects from face distractors during processing of name targets. This finding was reconciled with load theory by proposing distinct processing resources for faces versus names. In the present study, we revisit this effect to test (a) whether increasing the processing overlap (perceptual, lexical, conceptual) between potential targets and distractors would reinstate the classic load effect, and (b) whether this data pattern could be better explained by load theory or by a rival account that argues that distractor dilution rather than target load determines the degree of distractor interference. Over four experiments, we first replicate the original finding and then show that load effects grow with increasing processing overlap between potential targets and distractors. However, by adding dilution conditions, we also show that these processing overlap dependent modulations of distractor interference can be explained by the distractor dilution perspective but not by perceptual load theory. Thus, our findings support a processing overlap dilution account of attentional selection.     

Selective Attention and Perceptual Load in Autism Spectrum Disorder

ABSTRACT— It has been suggested that the locus of selective attention (early vs. late in processing) is dependent on the perceptual load of the task. When perceptual load is low, irrelevant distractors are processed (late selection), whereas when perceptual load is high, distractor interference disappears (early selection). Attentional abnormalities have long been reported within autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and this study is the first to examine the effect of perceptual load on selective attention in this population. Fourteen adults with ASD and 23 adults without ASD performed a selective attention task with varying perceptual loads. Compared with the non-ASD group, the ASD group required higher levels of perceptual load to successfully ignore irrelevant distractors; moreover, the ASD group did not show any general reduction in performance speed or accuracy. These results suggest enhanced perceptual capacity in the ASD group and are consistent with previous observations regarding superior visual search abilities among individuals with ASD.     

不同注意负载条件下刺激驱动的注意捕获

Lavie的注意负载理论认为:靶任务的加工负载决定无关干扰子被加工的程度;当靶任务的注意负载增高时,外周干扰子被注意的程度会减弱。实验通过改变靶任务的负载、以及干扰子出现的时程,发现干扰子在低和高负载条件下同样可以产生刺激驱动的注意捕获：低负载在333ms左右;高负载在0~167ms左右。这说明在高负载条件下干扰子同样会吸引注意,只是在时程上与低负载不同。     

Role of working memory load on selective attention to affectively valent information

Empirical evidence obtained with neutral stimuli has shown that selective attention relies on working memory functions as distractor processing occurs under conditions of high but not of low working memory load. We investigated whether these findings also hold for affectively valent distractors. In three experiments, participants completed the original Flanker task with famous people (Exps 1 and 2) and an affective Flanker task (Exp. 3) in which positive and negative words were presented superimposed onto happy, angry, and neutral faces under conditions of high or low working memory load. In line with past findings, results showed greater interference effects due to processing of distractors showing known people under high working memory load. In contrast interference effects due to processing of valent distractors occurred regardless of working memory load. The present findings are in contrast with those reported with neutral stimuli as they indicate that automatic evaluation of incoming affectively valent information occurs regardless of task priorities and of working memory load.     

The role of perceptual load in negative priming

Negative priming (NP) effects from irrelevant distractors were assessed as a function of perceptual load in the processing of prime targets. Participants searched for a target letter among a varying number of nontarget letters in the center of the display and ignored an irrelevant peripheral distractor. NP from this distractor was found to depend on the relevant search set size, decreasing as this set size was increased. The authors conclude that exhausting attention in relevant processing reduces irrelevant processing (e.g., N. Lavie, 1995), leaving less distractor processing to produce NP. This conclusion is consistent with recent reactive inhibition views for NP (e.g., G. Houghton, S. P. Tipper, B. Weaver, & D. I. Shore, 1996).     

Intertrial priming due to distractor repetition is eliminated in homogeneous contexts

Targets are found more easily in a visual search task when their feature is repeatedly presented, an effect known as intertrial priming. Recent findings suggest that priming of distractors can also improve search performance by facilitated suppression of repeated distractor features. The efficacy of intertrial priming for targets can be potentiated by the expectancy of a specific target feature; systematic repetition shows larger intertrial priming than random repetition. For distractors, the underlying mechanism is less clear. We used the systematic lateralization approach to disentangle target- and distractor-related processing with subcomponents of the N2pc. We found no modulation of the N_T component, which reflects prioritization of target processing. The N_D component, which reflects attentional capture by irrelevant stimuli, however, showed intertrial priming: N_D monotonically decreased with repetition of a distractor color, but only if a specific distractor feature was expected, and if the context induced a search that was vulnerable to attentional capture. These observations suggest that distractor priming only improves visual search if volitional control is relatively high. The results also suggest that intertrial priming for distractors is due to decreased attentional capture by repeatedly presented distractors, whereas target processing remains unaffected.     

The persistence of distraction: A study of attentional biases by fear,faces, and context

Efficient processing of the visual world requires that distracting items be avoided, or at least rapidly disengaged from. The mechanisms by which highly salient, yet irrelevant, stimuli lead to distraction, however, are not well understood. Here, we utilized a particularly strong type of distractor—images of human faces—to investigate the mechanisms of distraction and the involuntarily biasing of attention. Across three experiments using a novel discrimination task, we provided new evidence that the robust distraction triggered by faces may not reflect enhanced attraction but, instead, may reflect an extended holding of attention. Specifically, the onset of a task-irrelevant distractor initially impaired target performance regardless of the identity of that distractor (fearful faces, neutral faces, or places). In contrast, an extended period of distraction was observed only when the distractor was a face. Our results thus demonstrate two distinct mechanisms contributing to distraction: an initial involuntary capture to any sudden event and a subsequent holding of attention to a potentially meaningful, yet task-irrelevant stimulus—in this case, a human face. Critically, the latter holding of attention by faces was not unique to fearful faces but also occurred for neutral faces. The present results dissociate attentional capture from hold in another way as well, since the capture occurred regardless of the nature of the distractors, but the extended holding of attention was dependent upon the ongoing distractor context.     

Concurrent working memory load can facilitate selective attention: evidence for specialized load

Load theory predicts that concurrent working memory load impairs selective attention and increases distractor interference (N. Lavie, A. Hirst, J. W. de Fockert, & E. Viding). Here, the authors present new evidence that the type of concurrent working memory load determines whether load impairs selective attention or not. Working memory load was paired with a same/different matching task that required focusing on targets while ignoring distractors. When working memory items shared the same limited-capacity processing mechanisms with targets in the matching task, distractor interference increased. However, when working memory items shared processing with distractors in the matching task, distractor interference decreased, facilitating target selection. A specialized load account is proposed to describe the dissociable effects of working memory load on selective processing depending on whether the load overlaps with targets or with distractors.