The attentional white bear phenomenon: the mandatory allocation of attention to expected distractor locations

The authors devised a prestimulus-probe method to assess the allocation of attention as a function of participants' top-down expectancies concerning distractor and target locations. Participants performed the flanker task, and distractor locations remained fixed. On some trials, instead of the flanker display, either 2 simultaneous dots or a horizontal line appeared. The dot in the expected distractor location was perceived to occur before the dot in the expected empty location, and the line appeared to extend from the expected distractor location to the expected empty location, suggesting that attention is allocated to expected distractor locations prior to stimulus onset. The authors propose that a process-all mechanism guides attention to expected locations of all stimuli regardless of task demands and that this constitutes a major cause for failures of selective attention.     

White bear everywhere: Exploring the boundaries of the attentional white bear phenomenon

Some failures of selective attention may be explained by the attentional white bear (AWB) phenomenon Tsal & Makovski (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32:351?C363, 2006), which indicates that prior knowledge of a distractor location causes attention to be actively allocated to it. The AWB effect is demonstrated in a task that includes infrequent trials that involve two simultaneous dots embedded among flanker trials. The dot positioned at an expected distractor location is perceived as appearing before the dot at an expected empty location, indicating that attentional resources have initially been allocated to the expected distractor locations. The main goal of this study was to explore the boundaries of the AWB phenomenon by imposing perceptual, memory, and sensory constraints on the flanker task. The results showed that the AWB effect was obtained even when additional constraints severely taxed the information-processing system. We propose that a mandatory mechanism guides a fixed minimal amount of attention to expected distractor locations in a top-down manner.     

Allocating attention to distractor locations is based on top-down expectations

Failures of selective attention may be explained by the attentional white bear (AWB) hypothesis maintaining that prior knowledge of distractor location causes attentional allocation to it. The AWB is demonstrated by embedding infrequent trials of two simultaneous dots among flanker trials. The dot at the expected distractor location is perceived as appearing before the dot at the expected empty location, indicating attentional allocation to expected distractor locations. A major requirement of the AWB hypothesis is that it occurs in a top-down manner due to expectations. We devised a variation of the original AWB experiment, which enabled us to differentiate between the top-down and bottom-up contributions. The results show that top-down expectancies, which are a critical part of the AWB characterization, occur independently of bottom-up contributions.     

Coarse guidance by numerosity in visual search

In five experiments, we examined whether the number of items can guide visual focal attention. Observers searched for the target area with the largest (or smallest) number of dots (squares in Experiment 4 and “checkerboards” in Experiment 5) among distractor areas with a smaller (or larger) number of dots. Results of Experiments 1 and 2 show that search efficiency is determined by target to distractor dot ratios. In searches where target items contained more dots than did distractor items, ratios over 1.5:1 yielded efficient search. Searches for targets where target items contained fewer dots than distractor items were harder. Here, ratios needed to be lower than 1:2 to yield efficient search. When the areas of the dots and of the squares containing them were fixed, as they were in Experiments 1 and 2, dot density and total dot area increased as dot number increased. Experiment 3 removed the density and area cues by allowing dot size and total dot area to vary. This produced a marked decline in search performance. Efficient search now required ratios of above 3:1 or below 1:3. By using more realistic and isoluminant stimuli, Experiments 4 and 5 show that guidance by numerosity is fragile. As is found with other features that guide focal attention (e.g., color, orientation, size), the numerosity differences that are able to guide attention by bottom-up signals are much coarser than the differences that can be detected in attended stimuli.     

Top-down and bottom-up attentional control: On the nature of interference from a salient distractor

In two experiments using spatial probes, we measured the temporal and spatial interactions between top-down control of attention and bottom-up interference from a salient distractor in visual search. The subjects searched for a square among circles, ignoring color. Probe response times showed that a color singleton distractor could draw attention to its location in the early stage of visual processing (before a 100-msec stimulus onset asynchrony [SOA]), but only when the color singleton distractor was located far from the target. Apparently the bottom-up activation of the singleton distractor’s location is affected early on by local interactions with nearby stimulus locations. Moreover, probe results showed that a singleton distractor did not receive attention after extended practice. These results suggest that top-down control of attention is possible at an early stage of visual processing. In the long-SOA condition (150-msec SOA), spatial attention selected the target location over distractor locations, and this tendency occurred with or without extended practice.     

Top-down and bottom-up attentional control: on the nature of interference from a salient distractor.

In two experiments using spatial probes, we measured the temporal and spatial interactions between top-down control of attention and bottom-up interference from a salient distractor in visual search. The subjects searched for a square among circles, ignoring color. Probe response times showed that a color singleton distractor could draw attention to its location in the early stage of visual processing (before a 100-msec stimulus onset asynchrony [SOA]), but only when the color singleton distractor was located far from the target. Apparently the bottom-up activation of the singleton distractor's location is affected early on by local interactions with nearby stimulus locations. Moreover, probe results showed that a singleton distractor did not receive attention after extended practice. These results suggest that top-down control of attention is possible at an early stage of visual processing. In the long-SOA condition (150-msec SOA), spatial attention selected the target location over distractor locations, and this tendency occurred with or without extended practice.     

An attentional-adaptation account of spatial negative priming: Evidence from event-related potentials

Negative priming (NP) refers to a slower response to a target stimulus if it has been previously ignored. To examine theoretical accounts of spatial NP, we recorded behavioral measures and event-related potentials (ERPs) in a target localization task. A target and distractor briefly appeared, and the participant pressed a key corresponding to the target’s location. The probability of the distractor appearing in each of four locations varied, whereas the target appeared with equal probabilities in all locations. We found that response times (RTs) were fastest when the prime distractor appeared in its most probable (frequent) location and when the prime target appeared in the location that never contained a distractor. Moreover, NP effects varied as a function of location: They were smallest when targets followed distractors in the frequent distractor location—a finding not predicted by episodic-retrieval or suppression accounts of NP. The ERP results showed that the P2, an ERP component associated with attentional orientation, was smaller in prime displays when the distractor appeared in its frequent location. Moreover, no differences were apparent between negative-prime and control trials in the N2, which is associated with suppression processes, nor in the P3, which is associated with episodic retrieval processes. These results indicate that the spatial NP effect is caused by both short- and long-term adaptation in preferences based on the history of inspecting unsuccessful locations. This article is dedicated to the memory of Edward E. Smith, and we indicate how this study was inspired by his research career.     

Inhibition of return following instructions to remember and forget.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed responding to a target that appears in the same rather than in a different location as a preceding peripheral onset cue. This study examined IOR as a function of whether the peripheral onset cue was a word that participants were directed to remember or forget. Using a modified item-method directed forgetting paradigm, words appeared one at a time to the left or right, followed by a remember or forget instruction. A target dot was then presented either in the same peripheral location as the preceding word or in a different location; participants made a speeded response to localize this target. Confirming compliance with the memory instructions, recall tests that alternated with blocks of IOR trials (Experiment 1) revealed few intrusions of to-be-forgotten words, and a final recognition test (Experiments 1 and 3) revealed more hits for to-be-remembered words than for to-be-forgotten words. Reaction times to the target dot revealed greater magnitude IOR following to-be-forgotten words than following to-be-remembered words (Experiments 1 and 3). Moreover, when compared to baseline IOR values (Experiment 2), it appeared that this difference resulted from a magnification of IOR following forget instructions and a reduction in IOR following remember instructions. These results demonstrate the usefulness of IOR as an index of memorial processes and suggest that attentional orienting may play a role in the remembering and forgetting of words presented in peripheral visual locations.     

Target localization among concurrent sound sources: No evidence for the inhibition of previous distractor responses

The visuospatial negative priming effect—that is, the slowed-down responding to a previously ignored location—is partly due to response inhibition associated with the previously ignored location (Buckolz, Goldfarb, & Khan, Perception & Psychophysics 66:837-845 2004). We tested whether response inhibition underlies spatial negative priming in the auditory modality as well. Eighty participants localized a target sound while ignoring a simultaneous distractor sound at another location. Eight possible sound locations were arranged in a semicircle around the participant. Pairs of adjacent locations were associated with the same response. On ignored repetition trials, the probe target sound was played from the same location as the previously ignored prime sound. On response control trials, prime distractor and probe target were played from different locations but were associated with the same response. On control trials, prime distractor and probe target shared neither location nor response. A response inhibition account predicts slowed-down responding when the response associated with the prime distractor has to be executed in the probe. There was no evidence of response inhibition in audition. Instead, the negative priming effect depended on whether the sound at the repeatedly occupied location changed identity between prime and probe. The latter result replicates earlier findings and supports the feature mismatching hypothesis, while the former is compatible with the assumption that response inhibition is irrelevant in auditory spatial attention.     

Developmental Differences in the Influence of Distractors on Maintenance in Spatial Working Memory

This study examined whether attention to a location plays a role in the maintenance of locations in spatial working memory in young children as it does in adults. This study was the first to investigate whether distractors presented during the delay of a spatial working-memory task influenced young children’s memory responses. Across 2 experiments, 3- and 6-year-olds completed a spatial working-memory task featuring a static target location and distractor location. Results indicated a change from 3 years to 6 years of age in how distractors influenced memory. Six-year-olds’ memory responses were biased away from a distractor that was close to the target location and on the outside of the target location relative to the center of the monitor. Distractors that were far from the target or that were toward the center of the monitor relative to the target location had no effect. Three-year-olds’ responses were biased toward a distractor when the distractor was on the outside of the target location and farther from the target. Distractors that were near the target location or toward the center of the monitor had no effect. These biases provide evidence that young children’s maintenance of a location in memory is influenced by attention.     

The effects of response priming on the planning and execution of goal-directed movements in the presence of a distracting stimulus

Two models of selective reaching have been proposed to account for deviations in movement trajectories in cluttered environments. The response vector model predicts movement trajectories should deviate towards or away from the location a distractor of little or large salience, respectively. In contrast, the response activation model predicts that a distractor with large salience should cause movement deviations towards it whereas a distractor with little salience should not influence the movement. The precuing technique was combined with the distractor interference paradigm to test these predictions. Results indicate that when the target was presented at the precued (salient) location, movements were unaffected by a distractor. Conversely, when the distractor was presented at the precued location while the target was presented at an uncued (non-salient) location, participants demonstrated increased reaction times and trajectory deviations towards the location of the distractor. These findings are consistent with the model of response activation.     

Deficit of preparatory attention in frontotemporal dementia

We studied preparatory attention in patients suffering from frontotemporal dementia in the beginning stages of the disease, using an experimental test developed by LaBerge, Auclair, and Siéroff (2000). In this experimental test, a distracter can appear while subjects have to prepare to respond to a simple target. The probability that a distracter can appear in a trial is varied across three blocks. Normal controls show an increase of response times to targets (slope) as a function of the distracter probability, preparatory attention to the target is reduced by the increase of the distracter probability. Patients suffering from frontotemporal dementia show a slope of response times which is more than twice as large as the slope obtained by their matched controls. Such an abnormal increase of response times to targets is interpreted as a deficit in preparatory attention. Patients also show more omissions than controls. We suggest that this deficit in preparatory attention is related to the frontal lesion presented by the patients and can result in higher distractibility, a symptom frequently encountered in these patients.     

Attentional control settings prevent abrupt onsets from capturing visual spatial attention

When a visual distractor appears earlier than a visual target in a target-detection task, response time is faster if the distractor appears at the same location as the target. When a visual distractor appears concurrently with a visual target in a target-detection task, response time is slowed relative to when no distractor is presented. Both effects have been taken as evidence of the capture of visual spatial attention, yet capture by early distractors is contingent on top-down attentional control settings (ACSs), and capture by concurrent distractors is not. The present study evaluated whether this incongruity is attributable to the timing of distractors (earlier than vs. concurrently with the target), or to the employed comparisons (same location/different location vs. distractor/no distractor). Using a task that presented both early and concurrent distractors, we observed that, regardless of timing, capture was contingent on ACSs when assessed by the same-location/different-location comparison. This result suggests that, although irrelevant stimuli cause nonspatial purely stimulus-driven effects, the capture of visual spatial attention is contingent on ACSs.     

The effect of novel distractors on performance in focused attention tasks: A cognitive-psychophysiological approach

In the present study, we examined whether or not novel stimuli affect performance in a focused attention task. Participants responded to a central target while an irrelevant distractor in the visual display was occasionally changed. In Experiment 1, both target and distractor were presented centrally within the focus of attention. In Experiment 2, a central target was presented along with an irrelevant distractor at a peripheral location, outside the focus of attention. Novel distractors were associated with longer latencies and enhanced orienting responses (as measured by skin conductance responses) only when presented at an attended location. In contrast, as is demonstrated in Experiment 3, the same peripheral novel distractors interfered with task performance when they possessed task-relevant information. These results indicate that there is a fundamental difference between novel stimuli and task-relevant stimuli. Whereas the former exert influence only within the focus of attention, the latter affect performance even when positioned in an unattended location. Our findings have important implications for the operation of visual attention.     

Attentional prioritization to contextually new objects

Using a hybrid paradigm of a contextual cuing task and a probe detection task, we tested whether or not contextually new objects can be prioritized in visual search. After several hundred visual search practice trials with repeated and nonrepeated layouts, an additional distractor that was contextually new was presented in the repeated layouts. The results showed that detection of probe dots appearing at the location of a search target was faster in the repeated than in the nonrepeated layouts. More importantly, detection of probe dots at the new object locations was as fast as that of probe dots at the target locations in repeated layouts, suggesting that the attentional system implicitly prioritizes the processing of a location where a change in contextual information has occurred.     

Predicting the shape of distance functions in curve tracing: Evidence for a zoom lens operator

Jolicoeur, Ullman, and MacKay (1986) showed that the time to confirm that two dots are on the same curve increases monotonically, but nonlinearly, as the curve distance between the two dots increases. These displays contained two curves and two dots. On same trials, the two dots were on the same curve (target curve), while the other curve served as a foil (distractor curve). The monotonically increasing effects of curve distance on response times for same trials suggested that the intervening curve segment was traced. In the present investigation of the source of the nonlinearity in these distance functions, it was hypothesized that differences in the distractor curves may have allowed a curve tracing operator with zoom lens properties to widen its receptive field while tracing parts of certain target curves. The wider receptive field may have allowed faster tracing over certain segments, owing to a reduced number of shifts required by the operator to scan the curve. The consequence of training certain segments of the curve more quickly than other segments of the curve would be a nonlinear effect of distance. A new set of stimuli was created for testing this hypothesis directly. Fairly linear distance effects were found for stimuli that contained a distractor curve that constrained the breadth of the postulated curve tracing operator, whereas stimuli that contained a distractor curve that could allow for a larger receptive field yielded nonlinear distance functions. The results are compared with the predictions of three quantitative models: pixel-by-pixel tracing; Jolicoeur, Ullman, and MacKay's (1991) bipartite operator; and a new zoom lens model, analogous to the zoom lens model of visual attention. The results were fit best by the latter model, in which tracing is accomplished by tracking the curve with a variably sized local operator.     

Probing attentional modulation of contextual cueing

The repetition of spatial layout implicitly facilitates visual search (contextual cueing effect; Chun & Jiang, 1998). Although a substantial number of studies have explored the mechanism underlying the contextual cueing effect, the manner in which contextual information guides spatial attention to a target location during a visual search remains unclear. We investigated the nature of attentional modulation by contextual cueing, using a hybrid paradigm of a visual search task and a probe dot detection task. In the case of a repeated spatial layout, detection of a probe dot was facilitated at a search target location and was inhibited at distractor locations relative to nonrepeated spatial layouts. Furthermore, these facilitatory and inhibitory effects possessed different learning properties across epochs (Experiment 1) and different time courses within a trial (Experiment 2). These results suggest that contextual cueing modulates attentional processing via both facilitation to the location of “to-be-attended” stimuli and inhibition to the locations of “to-be-ignored” stimuli.     

Is visual information integrated across saccades?

After subjects established fixation on a target cross, 12 dots were presented parafoveally. When the dots were presented, the subjects made an eye movement to the location of the dots, and during the saccade the 12 initially presented dots were replaced by 12 other dots. The 24 dots were part of a 5 × 5 matrix, and the task of the subject was to report which dot was missing. The data were consistent with other recent studies: subjects could successfully report the location of the missing dot far above chance (54%), whereas performance in a control condition (in which the two sets of dots were presented to different spatial and retinal locations) was almost at chance level (10%). However, a number of control conditions demonstrated that the effect was due primarily to persistence from the phosphor of the cathode ray tube used for stimulus presentation and that little of the visual information integrated was across two fixations. Implications of the results for a theory of integration across saccades are discussed.     

Spatial selection via feature-driven inhibition of distractor locations

The allocation of spatial attention was measured with detection probes at different locations. Response times were faster for probes at the location of the target digit, which subjects reported, than at the locations of distractor digits, which they ignored. Probes at blank locations between stimuli produced fast responses, indicating that selection was accomplished by inhibiting distractor locations but not other areas. Unlike earlier studies using location cuing with simpler stimuli, these experiments showed no attentional differences across horizontal or vertical midlines. Attention varied little with distance from the target, although blank locations far from the target were somewhat less attended than were those near the target, and attention was only slightly affected by expectations for stimulus location. This task demonstrates a form of feature-driven spatial attention, in which locations with objects lacking target features are inhibited.     

Detection of changes in spatial position: III. Dot number or dot density?

Better detection of changes in spatial position is achieved within random dot patterns consisting of a small number of dots rather than a large number of dots. Why? The result might be related directly to the number of display elements which must be monitored and thereby linked to the sharing of attention across display elements. The result, previously obtained for displays of constant area, might be related to the density of display elements and thereby linked to proximity relations within spatial patterns. Or the result may be due to the local separation of neighboring dots when inquiring about the state of a specific dot. The present study attempts to unconfound these factors. It is shown that performance is related to the number of dots that must be motored, irrespective of dot density; that dot density 18 effective primarily 10 the inquiry of the state of specific elements; and then principally as It relates to the separation of the queried element from its neighbors.