Independent allocation of attention to eye and hand targets in coordinated eye-hand movements

When reaching for objects, people frequently look where they reach. This raises the question of whether the targets for the eye and hand in concurrent eye and hand movements are selected by a unitary attentional system or by independent mechanisms. We used the deployment of visual attention as an index of the selection of movement targets and asked observers to reach and look to either the same location or separate locations. Results show that during the preparation of coordinated movements, attention is allocated in parallel to the targets of a saccade and a reaching movement. Attentional allocations for the two movements interact synergistically when both are directed to a common goal. Delaying the eye movement delays the attentional shift to the saccade target while leaving attentional deployment to the reach target unaffected. Our findings demonstrate that attentional resources are allocated independently to the targets of eye and hand movements and suggest that the goals for these effectors are selected by separate attentional mechanisms.     

Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: visual working memory content affects visual attention

In 7 experiments, the authors explored whether visual attention (the ability to select relevant visual information) and visual working memory (the ability to retain relevant visual information) share the same content representations. The presence of singleton distractors interfered more strongly with a visual search task when it was accompanied by an additional memory task. Singleton distractors interfered even more when they were identical or related to the object held in memory, but only when it was difficult to verbalize the memory content. Furthermore, this content-specific interaction occurred for features that were relevant to the memory task but not for irrelevant features of the same object or for once-remembered objects that could be forgotten. Finally, memory-related distractors attracted more eye movements but did not result in longer fixations. The results demonstrate memory-driven attentional capture on the basis of content-specific representations.     

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.     

Attention maintains mental extrapolation of target position: irrelevant distractors eliminate forward displacement after implied motion

Observers' judgments of the final position of a moving target are typically shifted in the direction of implied motion ("representational momentum"). The role of attention is unclear: visual attention may be necessary to maintain or halt target displacement. When attention was captured by irrelevant distractors presented during the retention interval, forward displacement after implied target motion disappeared, suggesting that attention may be necessary to maintain mental extrapolation of target motion. In a further corroborative experiment, the deployment of attention was measured after a sequence of implied motion, and faster responses were observed to stimuli appearing in the direction of motion. Thus, attention may guide the mental extrapolation of target motion. Additionally, eye movements were measured during stimulus presentation and retention interval. The results showed that forward displacement with implied motion does not depend on eye movements. Differences between implied and smooth motion are discussed with respect to recent neurophysiological findings.     

More capture,more suppression: Distractor suppression due to statistical regularities is determined by the magnitude of attentional capture

Salient yet irrelevant objects often interfere with daily tasks by capturing attention against our best interests and intentions. Recent research has shown that through implicit learning, distraction by a salient object can be reduced by suppressing the location where this distractor is likely to appear. Here, we investigated whether suppression of such high-probability distractor locations is an all-or-none phenomenon or specifically tuned to the degree of interference caused by the distractor. In two experiments, we varied the salience of two task-irrelevant singleton distractors each of which was more likely to appear in one specific location in the visual field. We show that the magnitude of interference by a distractor determines the magnitude of suppression for its high-probability location: The more salient a distractor, the more it becomes suppressed when appearing in its high-probability location. We conclude that distractor suppression emerges as a consequence of the spatial regularities regarding the location of a distractor as well as its potency to interfere with attentional selection.

     

Oculomotor consequences of abrupt object onsets and offsets: onsets dominate oculomotor capture

Previous research has shown that the appearance of an object (onset) and the disappearance of an object (offset) have the ability to influence the allocation of covert attention. To determine whether both onsets and offsets have the ability to influence eye movements, a series of experiments was conducted in which participants had to make goal-directed eye movements to a color singleton target in the presence of an irrelevant onset/offset. In accord with previous research, onsets had the ability to capture the eyes. The offset of an object demonstrated little or no ability to interrupt goal-directed eye movements to the target. Two experiments in which the effects of onsets and offsets on covert attention were examined suggest that offsets do not capture the eyes, because they have a lesser ability to capture covert attention than do onsets. A number of other studies that have shown strong effects of offsets on attention have used offsets that were uncorrelated with target position (i.e., nonpredictive), whereas we used onsets and offsets that never served as targets (i.e., antipredictive). The present results are consistent with a new-object theory of attentional capture in which onsets receive attentional priority over other types of changes in the visual environment.     

Top-down knowledge modulates onset capture in a feedforward manner

How do we select behaviourally important information from cluttered visual environments? Previous research has shown that both top-down, goal-driven factors and bottom-up, stimulus-driven factors determine which stimuli are selected. However, it is still debated when top-down processes modulate visual selection. According to a feedforward account, top-down processes modulate visual processing even before the appearance of any stimuli, whereas others claim that top-down processes modulate visual selection only at a late stage, via feedback processing. In line with such a dual stage account, some studies found that eye movements to an irrelevant onset distractor are not modulated by its similarity to the target stimulus, especially when eye movements are launched early (within 150-ms post stimulus onset). However, in these studies the target transiently changed colour due to a colour after-effect that occurred during premasking, and the time course analyses were incomplete. The present study tested the feedforward account against the dual stage account in two eye tracking experiments, with and without colour after-effects (Exp. 1), as well when the target colour varied randomly and observers were informed of the target colour with a word cue (Exp. 2). The results showed that top-down processes modulated the earliest eye movements to the onset distractors (<150-ms latencies), without incurring any costs for selection of target matching distractors. These results unambiguously support a feedforward account of top-down modulation.     

Distracted by distractors: eye movements in a dynamic inattentional blindness task

Inattentional Blindness (IB) occurs when observers engaged in resource-consuming tasks fail to see unexpected stimuli that appear in their visual field. Eye movements were recorded in a dynamic IB task where participants tracked targets amongst distractors. During the task, an unexpected stimulus crossed the screen for several seconds. Individuals who failed to report the unexpected stimulus were deemed to be IB. Being IB was associated with making more fixations and longer gaze times on distractor stimuli, being less likely to fixate the unexpected stimulus, and having lower working memory capacity than those who were not IB. Noticing the unexpected stimulus was not contingent upon fixating it, suggesting that some individuals processed the unexpected stimulus via covert attention. The findings support earlier research on working memory and IB. In addition, IBs were less efficient attentional allocators than those who were not IB, as reflected in their eye tracking of irrelevant distractors.     

The attentional window configures to object and surface boundaries

Attention can select items based on location or features. Belopolsky and colleagues posited the attentional window hypothesis, which theorized that spatial and featural selection interact such that featural selection occurs within a “window” of spatial selection. Kerzel and colleagues recently found that the attentional window can take complex shapes, but cannot configure around non-contiguous locations. The current experiments investigated whether perceptual grouping cues, which produce perceptual objects or surfaces, enable the attentional window to configure around non-contiguous locations. Using the additional singleton paradigm, we reasoned that observers (1) would be slowed by a colour singleton distractor that appears within the observers’ attentional window and (2) would be unaffected by distractors that do not appear within the attentional window. In separate blocks of trials, a target appeared upon one of two objects. Observers were cued to the relevant surface, and we asked if responses were affected by distractors on the cued task-relevant surface, and on the uncued irrelevant surface. Colour singleton distractors slowed responses when they appeared on the cued surface, even when those locations were non-contiguous locations. Distractors on the irrelevant surface did not affect responses. The results support a highly adaptable attentional window that is configurable to the surfaces and boundaries established by intermediate-level vision.     

Just passing through? Inhibition of return in saccadic sequences

Responses tend to be slower to previously fixated spatial locations, an effect known as “inhibition of return” (IOR). Saccades cannot be assumed to be independent, however, and saccade sequences programmed in parallel differ from independent eye movements. We measured the speed of both saccadic and manual responses to probes appearing in previously fixated locations when those locations were fixated as part of either parallel or independent saccade sequences. Saccadic IOR was observed in independent but not parallel saccade sequences, while manual IOR was present in both parallel and independent sequence types. Saccadic IOR was also short-lived, and dissipated with delays of more than ～1500?ms between the intermediate fixation and the probe onset. The results confirm that the characteristics of IOR depend critically on the response modality used for measuring it, with saccadic and manual responses giving rise to motor and attentional forms of IOR, respectively. Saccadic IOR is relatively short-lived and is not observed at intermediate locations of parallel saccade sequences, while attentional IOR is long-lasting and consistent for all sequence types.     

Value-driven attentional and oculomotor capture during goal-directed, unconstrained viewing

Covert shifts of attention precede and direct overt eye movements to stimuli that are task relevant or physically salient. A growing body of evidence suggests that the learned value of perceptual stimuli strongly influences their attentional priority. For example, previously rewarded but otherwise irrelevant and inconspicuous stimuli capture covert attention involuntarily. It is unknown, however, whether stimuli also draw eye movements involuntarily as a consequence of their reward history. Here, we show that previously rewarded but currently task-irrelevant stimuli capture both attention and the eyes. Value-driven oculomotor capture was observed during unconstrained viewing, when neither eye movements nor fixations were required, and was strongly related to individual differences in visual working memory capacity. The appearance of a reward-associated stimulus came to evoke pupil dilation over the course of training, which provides physiological evidence that the stimuli that elicit value-driven capture come to serve as reward-predictive cues. These findings reveal a close coupling of value-driven attentional capture and eye movements that has broad implications for theories of attention and reward learning.     

Trial-by-trial adjustments of top-down set modulate oculomotor capture

The role of top-down control in visual search has been a subject of much debate. Recent research has focused on whether attentional and oculomotor capture by irrelevant salient distractors can be modulated through top-down control, and if so, whether top-down control can be rapidly initiated based on current task goals. In the present study, participants searched for a unique shape in an array containing otherwise homogeneous shapes. A cue prior to each trial indicated the probability that an irrelevant color singleton distractor would appear on that trial. Initial saccades were less likely to land on the target and participants took longer to initiate a saccade to the target when a color distractor was present than when it was absent; this cost was greatly reduced on trials in which the probability that a distractor would appear was high, as compared to when the probability was low. These results suggest that top-down control can modulate oculomotor capture in visual search, even in a singleton search task in which distractors are known to readily capture both attention and the eyes. Furthermore, the results show that top-down distractor suppression mechanisms can be initiated quickly in anticipation of irrelevant salient distractors and can be adjusted on a trial-by-trial basis.     

The time course of attentional and oculomotor capture reveals a common cause

Eye movements are often misdirected toward a distractor when it appears abruptly, an effect known as oculomotor capture. Fundamental differences between eye movements and attention have led to questions about the relationship of oculomotor capture to the more general effect of sudden onsets on performance, known as attentional capture. This study explores that issue by examining the time course of eye movements and manual localization responses to targets in the presence of sudden-onset distractors. The results demonstrate that for both response types, the proportion of trials on which responses are erroneously directed to sudden onsets reflects the quality of information about the visual display at a given point in time. Oculomotor capture appears to be a specific instance of a more general attentional capture effect. Differences and similarities between the two types of capture can be explained by the critical idea that the quality of information about a visual display changes over time and that different response systems tend to access this information at different moments in time.     

Dividing attention between two different categories and locations in rapid serial visual presentations

When two targets are embedded in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream of distractors, perception of the second target is impaired if the intertarget lag is relatively short (less than 500 msec). This phenomenon, called attentional blink, has been attributed to a temporal inability of attentional resources. Nevertheless, a recent study found that observers could monitor two RSVP streams concurrently for up to four items presented in close succession, suggesting a much larger visual capacity limit. However, such high-capacity performance could be obtained by a rapid shift of attention, rather than concurrent monitoring of multiple locations. Therefore, the present study examined these alternatives. Results from six experiments indicate that observers can concurrently monitor two noncontiguous locations, even when targets and distractors are from different categories, such as digits, English alphabet letters, Japanese characters, and pseudocharacters. These results can be explained in terms of a modified input-filtering model in which a multidimensional attentional set can be flexibly configured at different spatial locations.     

Modulation of oculomotor capture by abrupt onsets during attentionally demanding visual search

The influence of abrupt onsets on attentionally demanding visual search (i.e., search for a letter target among heterogeneous letter distractors), as indexed by performance and eye movement measures, was investigated in a series of studies. In Experiments 1 and 2 we examined whether onsets would capture the eyes when the appearance of an onset predicted neither the location nor the identity of the target. Subjects did direct their eyes to the abrupt onsets on a disproportionate number of trials in these studies. Interestingly, however, onset capture was modulated by subjects' scan strategies. Furthermore, onsets captured the eyes less frequently than would have been predicted by paradigms showing attentional capture when no eye movements are required. Experiment 3 examined the question of whether onsets would capture the eyes in a situation in which they never served as the target. Capture was observed in this study. However, the magnitude of capture effects was substantially diminished as compared to previous behavioural studies in which the onset had a chance probability of serving as the target. These data are discussed in terms of the influence of top-down constraints on stimulus-driven attentional and oculomotor capture by abrupt onset stimuli.     

Suppression of overt attentional capture by salient-but-irrelevant color singletons

For more than 2 decades, researchers have debated the nature of cognitive control in the guidance of visual attention. Stimulus-driven theories claim that salient stimuli automatically capture attention, whereas goal-driven theories propose that an individual’s attentional control settings determine whether salient stimuli capture attention. In the current study, we tested a hybrid account called the signal suppression hypothesis, which claims that all stimuli automatically generate a salience signal but that this signal can be actively suppressed by top-down attentional mechanisms. Previous behavioral and electrophysiological research has shown that participants can suppress covert shifts of attention to salient-but-irrelevant color singletons. In this study, we used eye-tracking methods to determine whether participants can also suppress overt shifts of attention to irrelevant singletons. We found that under conditions that promote active suppression of the irrelevant singletons, overt attention was less likely to be directed toward the salient distractors than toward nonsalient distractors. This result provides direct evidence that people can suppress salient-but-irrelevant singletons below baseline levels.     

When spiders appear suddenly: spider-phobic patients are distracted by task-irrelevant spiders

Fear is thought to facilitate the detection of threatening stimuli. Few studies have examined the effects of task-irrelevant phobic cues in search tasks that do not involve semantic categorization. In a combined reaction time and eye-tracking experiment we investigated whether peripheral visual cues capture initial attention and distract from the execution of goal-directed eye movements. Twenty-one spider-phobic patients and 21 control participants were instructed to search for a color singleton while ignoring task-irrelevant abrupt-onset distractors which contained either a small picture of a spider (phobic), a flower (non-phobic, but similar to spiders in shape), a mushroom (non-phobic, and not similar to spiders in shape), or no picture. As expected, patients' reaction times were longer on trials with spider distractors. However, eye movements revealed that this was not due to attentional capture by spider distractors; patients more often fixated on all distractors with pictures, but their reaction times were delayed by longer fixation durations on spider distractors. These data do not support automatic capture of attention by phobic cues but suggest that phobic patients fail to disengage attention from spiders.     

Irrelevant onsets cause inhibition of return regardless of attentional set

It is disputed whether onsets capture spatial attention either in a purely stimulus-driven fashion or only when they are contingent on one's attentional set. According to the latter assumption, interference from irrelevant onsets may result from nonspatial filtering costs. In the present study, we used inhibition of return (IOR) as a marker for spatial attention. IOR occurs mainly for locations that attention has visited before. Participants searched for a red object among white objects. An attentional set for redness was demonstrated by a spatial validity effect of red cues on response times. However, a stronger validity effect was found for irrelevant white onsets, which slowed responses when the onset contained a distractor, but speeded them when the onset contained a target. Most importantly, this onset benefit for targets turned into a deficit at longer SOAs, indicating IOR. We conclude that onset distractors capture spatial attention regardless of the observer's attentional set.     

The influence of relevant and irrelevant stereoscopic depth cues: Depth information does not always capture attention

Previous research reported ambiguous findings regarding the relationship of visuospatial attention and (stereoscopic) depth information. Some studies indicate that attention can be focused on a distinct depth plane, while other investigations revealed attentional capture from irrelevant items located in other, unattended depth planes. To evaluate whether task relevance of depth information modulates the deployment of attentional resources across depth planes, the additional singleton paradigm was adapted: Singletons defined by depth (i.e., displayed behind or in front of a central depth plane) or color (green against gray) were presented among neutral items and served as targets or (irrelevant) distractors. When participants were instructed to search for a color target, no attentional capture from irrelevant depth distractors was observed. In contrast, it took substantially longer to search for depth targets when an irrelevant distractor was presented simultaneously. Color distractors as well as depth distractors caused attentional capture, independent of the distractors’ relative depth position (i.e., in front of or behind the target). However, slight differences in task performance were obtained depending on whether or not participants fixated within the target depth plane. Thus, the current findings indicate that attentional resources in general are uniformly distributed across different depth planes. Although task relevant depth singletons clearly affect the attentional system, this information might be processed subsequent to other stimulus features.     

The control of saccade trajectories: direction of curvature depends on prior knowledge of target location and saccade latency

Recent reports have shown that saccades can deviate either toward or away from distractors. However, the specific conditions responsible for the change in initial saccade direction are not known. One possibility, examined here, is that the direction of curvature (toward or away from distractors) reflects preparatory tuning of the oculomotor system when the location of the target and distractor are known in advance. This was investigated by examining saccade trajectories under predictable and unpredictable target conditions. In Experiment 1, the targets and the distractors appeared unpredictably, whereas in Experiment 2 an arrow cue presented at fixation indicated the location of the forthcoming target prior to stimulus onset. Saccades were made to targets on the horizontal, vertical, and principal oblique axis, and distractors appeared simultaneously at an adjacent location (a separation of +/- 45 degrees of visual angle). On average, saccade trajectories curved toward distractors when target locations were unpredictable and curved away from distractors when target locations were known in advance. There was no overall difference in mean saccade latencies between the two experiments. The magnitude of the distractor modulation of saccade trajectory (either toward or away from) was comparable across the different saccade directions (horizontal, vertical, and oblique). These results are interpreted in terms of the time course of competitive interactions operating in the neural structures involved in the suppression of distractors and the selection of a saccade target. A relatively slow mechanism that inhibits movements to distractors produces curvature away from the distractor. This mechanism has more time to operate when target location is predictable, increasing the likelihood that the saccade trajectory will deviate away from the distractor.