Salience detection and attentional capture

There is an ongoing debate to what extent irrelevant salient information attracts an observer’s attention and is processed without the observer intending to do so. The present experiment investigated attentional capture of salient but irrelevant objects and compared target processing in target-and-distractor to target-only trials. Both form and color singletons were used and their target–distractor assignment was interchanged. Thus the general impact of the presence of a salient distractor on target processing could be separated from the impact of the specific target–distractor salience relation. Response latencies and event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were registered. Results showed a strong influence of the mere presence of an irrelevant distractor on target processing: both the visual N1 and the posterior N2 showed better attention focusing in target-only trials compared to target-and-distractor trials. Response times and N2pc results, on the other hand, showed evidence in favor of salience-specific attention allocation. N2pc results indicated that the distractor affected the allocation of attention in trials with form targets and color distractors but not in the opposite condition. Taken together, results showed a general impact of irrelevant salient singletons on search behavior when they were presented simultaneously with relevant singletons. The allocation of focal attention (as mirrored by the N2pc), however, was also influenced by the specific target–distractor salience relation.     

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.     

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.     

Capture versus suppression of attention by salient singletons: Electrophysiological evidence for an automatic attend-to-me signal

There is considerable controversy about whether salient singletons capture attention in a bottom-up fashion, irrespective of top-down control settings. One possibility is that salient singletons always generate an attention capture signal, but this signal can be actively suppressed to avoid capture. In the present study, we investigated this issue by using event-related potential recordings, focusing on N2pc (N2-posterior-contralateral; a measure of attentional deployment) and Pd (distractor positivity; a measure of attentional suppression). Participants searched for a specific letter within one of two regions, and irrelevant color singletons were sometimes present. We found that the irrelevant singletons did not elicit N2pc but instead elicited Pd; this occurred equally within the attended and unattended regions. These findings suggest that salient singletons may automatically produce an attend-to-me signal, irrespective of top-down control settings, but this signal can be overridden by an active suppression process to prevent the actual capture of attention.     

非目标工作记忆表征下颜色关联和抽象关联的注意捕获和抑制

采用工作记忆—视觉搜索双任务范式,探讨在非目标工作记忆表征下,颜色关联和抽象关联干扰子的注意捕获和抑制现象。实验1结果发现,颜色关联干扰子在快速反应阶段捕获注意,随后被成功抑制;抽象关联干扰子仍能捕获注意。实验2消除知觉凸显后,结果发现颜色关联条件的抑制消失,干扰子重新捕获注意。结果表明,有效抑制策略受不同关联干扰子加工先后顺序的影响,选择性抑制颜色关联干扰子,而颜色特征的凸显有助于抑制策略形成。     

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.     

An effective attentional set for a specific colour does not prevent capture by infrequently presented motion distractors

An organism's survival depends on the ability to rapidly orient attention to unanticipated events in the world. Yet, the conditions needed to elicit such involuntary capture remain in doubt. Especially puzzling are spatial cueing experiments, which have consistently shown that involuntary shifts of attention to highly salient distractors are not determined by stimulus properties, but instead are contingent on attentional control settings induced by task demands. Do we always need to be set for an event to be captured by it, or is there a class of events that draw attention involuntarily even when unconnected to task goals? Recent results suggest that a task-irrelevant event will capture attention on first presentation, suggesting that salient stimuli that violate contextual expectations might automatically capture attention. Here, we investigated the role of contextual expectation by examining whether an irrelevant motion cue that was presented only rarely (～3–6% of trials) would capture attention when observers had an active set for a specific target colour. The motion cue had no effect when presented frequently, but when rare produced a pattern of interference consistent with attentional capture. The critical dependence on the frequency with which the irrelevant motion singleton was presented is consistent with early theories of involuntary orienting to novel stimuli. We suggest that attention will be captured by salient stimuli that violate expectations, whereas top-down goals appear to modulate capture by stimuli that broadly conform to contextual expectations.     

Irrelevant singletons capture attention: evidence from inhibition of return

Previous research has shown that a salient feature singleton may capture attention in a stimulus-driven, bottom-up fashion (e.g., Theeuwes, 1992,1994b). This conclusion has been challenged by others claiming that the observed attentional capture by irrelevant singletons may not be stimulus driven but due to top-down attentional control settings and/or nonspatial filtering costs. In the present study, we show that inhibition of return (IOR) occurs at the location of an irrelevant singleton. Participants were slower to detect a target presented at the location of the irrelevant singleton, relative to other locations. Since IOR can be observed only as a result of an exogenous, stimulus-driven shift of spatial attention, it isun-likely that top-down control settings and/or nonspatial filtering costs played a role. In line with earlier claims, the present findings provide strong evidence that salient singletons capture spatial attention in a purely bottom-up way.     

Attentional capture by abrupt onsets and feature singletons produces inhibitory surrounds

Two experiments found that form discriminations to a target item were inhibited when the target appeared adjacent to an attentionally salient item. Experiment 1 manipulated the attentional salience of an irrelevant color singleton through the attentional set adopted by the subjects. Color singletons captured attention when the target was itself a feature singleton, but not when the target was defined as a conjunction of features. Attentional capture was accompanied by an inhibitory region (i.e., slowed target reaction times), which dissipated with distance from the color singleton. In Experiment 2, the attentional salience of abrupt onsets and color singletons was compared. Irrelevant abrupt onsets captured attention, whereas irrelevant color singletons failed to capture attention. Again, an inhibitory region surrounded the attentionally salient abrupt onsets, but not the color singletons. The results are discussed in the context of current models of visual spatial attention and suggest a distinction between attentional preparation and attentional selection.     

Made you blink! Contingent attentional capture produces a spatial blink

Previous studies have shown that the capture of attention by an irrelevant stimulus can be eliminated by fore knowledge of the spatial location of the relevant target stimulus. To explore whether spatial certainty is sufficient to eliminate capture, four experiments are reported in which the spatial location of the target is certain but the temporal position is uncertain. Subjects viewed a central rapid serial visual presentation stream in which a target letter was defined by a particular color (e.g., red). On critical trials, irrelevant color singletons appeared in the periphery. In Experiments 1 and 2, peripheral singletons produced a decrement in central target identification that was contingent on the match between the singleton color and the target color. Experiments 3 and 4 provided evidence that this decrement reflected a shift of spatial attention to the location of the distractor. The results suggest that spatial certainty is not sufficient to eliminate attentional capture and that attentional capture can result in a spatial "blink" that is conditional on top-down attentional control settings.     

How to keep attention from straying: Get engaged!

Previous research has suggested that the involuntary allocation of spatial attention to salient, irrelevant stimuli (i.e., attentional capture) is prevented when attention is in a focused state (e.g., Yantis & Jonides, 1990). Recent work has suggested that although focused attention may be necessary to prevent attentional capture by irrelevant stimuli, it is not sufficient (e.g., Folk, Leber, & Egeth, 2002). The present experiments provide evidence that attentional engagement, rather than attentional focusing, prevents capture. Observers performed a rapid serial visual presentation task in which they were asked to identify a target letter defined by color. Peripheral distractors that shared the color of the target produced evidence of attentional capture. This effect was completely eliminated, however, when the peripheral distractor was preceded by a central distractor designed to engage attention on the stream. It is concluded that attentional engagement serves to lock out capture by irrelevant, salient stimuli.     

Attentional capture in driving displays

Drivers face frequent distraction on the roadways, but little is known about situations placing them at risk of misallocating visual attention. To investigate this issue, we asked participants to search for a red target embedded within simulated driving scenes (photographs taken from inside a car) in three experiments. Distraction was induced by presenting, via a GPS unit, red or green distractors positioned in an irrelevant location at which the target never appeared. If the salient distractor captures attention, visual search should be slower on distractor‐present trials than distractor‐absent trials. In Experiment 1, salient distractors yielded no such capture effect. In Experiment 2, we decreased the frequency of the salient distractor from 50% of trials to only 10% or 20% of trials. Capture effects were almost five times larger for the 10% occurrence group than for the 20% occurrence group. In Experiment 3, the amount of available central resources was manipulated by asking participants to either simultaneously monitor or ignore a stream of spoken digits. Capture effects were much larger for the dual‐task group than for the single‐task group. In summary, these findings identify risk factors for attentional capture in real‐world driving scenes: distractor rarity and diversion of attention.     

Attentional shifts to rare singletons

Five experiments examined whether extremely rare featural singletons (e.g., presented in 4% of all trials) capture attention, and whether this effect could be explained by top-down contingent capture or stimulus-driven singleton capture. To this end, performance (accuracy in Experiments 1–4, reaction time in Experiment 5) in a demanding letter search task was measured in singleton trials that were presented within rare-singleton blocks consisting mainly of no-singleton trials, and in singleton trials that occurred in all-singleton blocks. In separate blocks, either target singletons (i.e., a singleton at target position), or distractor singletons (i.e., a singleton at a distractor position) were presented in each trial. Results are consistent with the contingent-capture view. When the letters were presented briefly and accuracy was the dependent variable, a large performance benefit was obtained, revealing that attention was shifted very fast to the singleton. An examination of search efficiency with a variation of set size and reaction time as the dependent variable revealed a strong gain in search efficiency with a rare target singleton. The large benefit was not accompanied by proportionally large costs for distractor singletons relative to the no-distractor trials. Moreover, a comparison of singleton trials from the all-singleton and from the rare-singleton blocks revealed nonspatial costs for the rare singletons that were of about the same size for target and distractor singletons. In summary, results show that an attentional control setting can remain “dormant” for many trials where it is not applicable, but is then applied nearly as efficiently as when the control setting has been used just recently.     

Attentional dwelling and capture by color singletons

Can salient stimuli—such as color singletons and abrupt onsets—involuntarily capture spatial attention? We previously reported evidence that abrupt onsets can capture attention, but the effects of this capture can become latent under easy visual search. The present experiments examined whether a similar pattern of latent capture occurs for task-irrelevant color singletons. Participants searched for a perfect circle among oval distractors. We manipulated search difficulty by varying the width of the oval distractors, making them more or less target-like (i.e., more or less circular). With search displays of homogeneous distractors, cue validity effects increased linearly with search difficulty, indicating capture by color singletons (Experiments 1 and 2). With heterogeneous distractors, however, discouraging the use of singleton-detection mode to find the target circle, cue validity effects from color singletons were negligible at all difficulty levels (Experiment 3). Using these exact same heterogeneous search displays, meanwhile, abrupt onsets produced very large cue validity effects (Experiment 4). We conclude that whereas abrupt onsets can capture attention based purely on salience, static color singletons capture attention only when made task-relevant by promoting singleton-detection mode (i.e., contingent capture). The data further support an attentional dwelling account of capture costs and reinforce the recommendation that, to ensure sensitivity to detect the presence (or absence) of attention capture, capture experiments should employ a difficult visual search.

     

An electrophysiological study of attention capture by salience: Does rarity enable capture?

Several behavioural studies have suggested that rarity is critical for enabling irrelevant, salient objects to capture attention. We tested this hypothesis using the N2pc thought to reflect attentional allocation. A cue display was followed by a target display in which participants identified the letter in a specific colour. Experiment 1 pitted rare, irrelevant abrupt onset cues (appearing on only 20% of trials) against target-relevant colour cues. The relevant colour cue produced large N2pc and cue validity effects even when competing with a rare, salient, simultaneous abrupt onset. Similar results occurred even when abrupt onset frequency was reduced to only 10% of trials (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 examined rare, irrelevant colour singleton cues (20% of trials). Despite being rare and salient, these singleton cues produced no N2pc or cue validity effect indicating little attentional capture. Experiment 4 greatly increased colour cue salience by adding four background boxes, increasing colour contrast and tripling the cue display duration (from 50 to 150 ms). Small cue validity and N2pc effects were obtained, but did not strongly depend on degree of rarity (20% vs. 100%). We argue that rarity by itself is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce attention capture.     

The cost of seeing the meaning: Conceptual processing of distractors triggers localized target suppression

It is often assumed that conceptual information impacts visual experience only after perceptual information has been extracted. However, the present study suggests that conceptual processing can interfere with perceptual processes, as reflected in target perception impairments that are specific to the location of conceptually salient distractors. Experiment 1 replicated previous findings that emotional distractors in a rapid serial visual presentation cause a spontaneous, spatially localized impairment in target perception, further finding that distractors that are merely featurally salient do not. Experiment 2 suggested that conceptually salient distractors that are non-emotional also elicit such spatially localized impairments, which are shorter lived than those following emotional distractors. Experiment 3 suggested that featurally salient distractors that are not conceptually salient engage a different, spatial attention mechanism. Together, these findings suggest that, whereas featurally salient distractors can capture spatial attention, conceptual distractors additionally engage mechanisms that suppress spatiotemporally competing targets.     

Attention capture while switching search strategies: Evidence for a breakdown in top-down attentional control

Whereas capture experiments typically repeat a single task many times, real world cognition is characterized by frequent switching. Lien, Ruthruff, and Johnston (2010) reported that the attentional control system can rapidly and fully switch between different search settings (e.g., red to green), with no carryover and no intertrial priming. The present study examined whether this impressive flexibility is possible even when the switch is not between different features along the same dimension, but between mutually incompatible search modes. On each trial, participants were prompted to find and identify the letter that was in a specific colour (feature search mode) or was uniquely coloured (singleton search mode). Within each block, search mode was either pure or mixed; the mixed blocks contained a fixed AABB search sequence (singleton-singleton-feature-feature) in Experiment 1 and a random sequence in Experiment 2. The target display was preceded by a noninformative cue display containing a nontarget colour singleton. In pure feature search blocks, these irrelevant singleton cues were generally unable to capture attention, replicating previous findings of “contingent capture”. In mixed blocks, however, irrelevant colour singletons captured attention on feature search trials. This breakdown indicates a limitation in the sharpness of attentional control following mode switches, which might be common in the real world.     

Bottom-up attention capture with distractor and target singletons defined in the same (color) dimension is not a matter of feature uncertainty

In visual search, attention capture by an irrelevant color-singleton distractor in another feature dimension than the target is dependent on whether or not the distractor changes its feature: Capture is present if the irrelevant color distractor can take on different features across trials, but absent if the distractor takes on only one feature throughout all trials. This influence could be due to down-weighting of the entire color map. Here we tested whether a similar effect could also be brought about by down-weighting of specific color channels within the same maps. We investigated whether a similar dependence of capture on color certainty might hold true if the distractor were defined in the same (color) dimension as the target. At odds with this possibility, in the first and third blocks—in which feature uncertainty was absent—an irrelevant distractor of a certain color captured attention. In addition, in a second block, varying the distractor color created feature uncertainty, but this did not increase capture. Repeating the exact same procedure with the same participants after one week confirmed the stability of the results. The present study showed that a color distractor presented in the same (color) dimension as the target captures attention independent of feature uncertainty. Thus, the down-weighting of single irrelevant color channels within the same feature map used for target search is not a matter of feature uncertainty.     

Search efficiency is not sufficient: The nature of search modulates stimulus-driven attention

It has long been debated whether or not a salient stimulus automatically attracts people’s attention in visual search. Recent findings showed that a salient stimulus is likely to capture attention especially when the search process was inefficient due to high levels of competition between the target and distractors. Expanding these studies, the present study proposes that a specific nature of visual search, as well as search efficiency, determines whether or not a salient, task-irrelevant singleton stimulus captures attention. To test this proposition, we conducted three experiments, in which participants performed two visual search tasks whose underlying mechanisms are known to be different: orientation-feature search and Landolt-C search tasks. We found that color singleton distractors captured attention when participants performed the orientation-feature search task. The magnitude of this capture effect increased as search efficiency decreased. On the contrary, the capture by singleton distractors was not observed under the Landolt-C search task. This differential pattern of capture effect was not due to differences in search efficiency across the search tasks; even when search efficiency was controlled for, stimulus-driven capture of attention by a salient distractor was found only under the feature search. Based on these results, the present study suggests that in addition to search efficiency, the nature of search strategy and the extent to which attentional control is strained play crucial roles in observing stimulus-driven attentional capture in visual search.     

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.