Demands on attention and the role of response priming in visual discrimination of feature conjunctions

This study examined how response mapping of features within single- and multiple-feature targets affects decision-based processing and attentional capacity demands. Observers judged the presence or absence of 1 or 2 target features within an object either presented alone or with distractors. Judging the presence of 2 features relative to the less discriminable of these features alone was faster (conjunction benefits) when the task-relevant features differed in discriminability and were consistently mapped to responses. Conjunction benefits were attributed to asynchronous decision priming across attended, task-relevant dimensions. A failure to find conjunction benefits for disjunctive conjunctions was attributed to increased memory demands and variable feature-response mapping for 2- versus single-feature targets. Further, attentional demands were similar between single- and 2-feature targets when response mapping, memory demands, and discriminability of the task-relevant features were equated between targets. Implications of the findings for recent attention models are discussed.     

Distractor interference in focused attention tasks is not mediated by attention capture

Distractor stimuli possessing information that is relevant for a task (henceforth, task-relevant distractors) often interfere with task performance. The interference by task-relevant distractors is observed even when distractors are positioned outside the main attentional focus. We investigated whether such interference is due to an attention capture by the distractors. Participants responded to a target colour while ignoring word distractors positioned within (Experiment 1) or outside (Experiments 2 and 3) the attentional focus. The words carried task-relevant information in their colour and personally significant information in their content. Because personally significant information affects performance only when positioned in an attended region, it was used as a marker for the locus of the attentional focus. As expected, when distractors were attended, both task-relevant and personally significant information affected performance. However, when distractors were unattended, only task-relevant information caused interference, suggesting that attention did not shift to the distractors’ location. We discuss possible accounts for interference effects in focused-attention tasks.     

Mechanisms of priming of pop-out: Stored representations or feature-gain modulations?

Previous research has shown that repetition of a task-relevant attention-capturing feature facilitates popout search. This priming of pop-out effect is due to some residual memory from recent trials. We explore two possible mechanisms of priming of pop-out: a top-down attentional benefit from a memory of the previous target representation that is stored in visual short-term memory (VSTM) and a bottom-up change of attentional gains from perceptual features of the previously attended target. We manipulated participants’ ability to form a memory trace in VSTM by occupying it with a distractor task and found that occupying VSTM did not interfere with priming of pop-out. We next manipulated attentional gains associated with feature values by inserting an irrelevant task between pop-out searches. We found that the color of the target from the intervening perceptual task influenced pop-out search: The current pop-out search was facilitated when the intervening task’s target matched the target color of the pop-out search. These results suggest that priming of pop-out might not be due to a memory trace of the previous targets in VSTM but, rather, might be due to changes in attentional control based on priming from relatively low-level feature representations of previously attended objects.     

When does visual attention select all features of a distractor?

What happens after visual attention is allocated to an object? Although many theories of attention assume that all of its features are selected and processed, there has been little direct evidence that an irrelevant feature dimension of an attended nontarget is processed. In 5 experiments presented here, the authors used a singleton paradigm to investigate the effect of attention on nontarget objects. Participants made a speeded feature discrimination of a target for which the response was either compatible or incompatible with an irrelevant feature dimension of a distractor. The results show that the irrelevant distractor features were processed to the point that they interfered with the response to the target. The response compatibility effect was observed even when the location of the target or the distractor was invariant, although it was much weaker when both locations were invariant. These results demonstrate that in many circumstances, an attended distractor is completely selected and fully processed, and the complete processing of distractors depends on a number of factors, many of which are related to the strength of attention to the distractor.     

Dilution of compatibility effects in Simon-type tasks depends on categorical similarity between distractors and diluters

The presence of a distracting stimulus during performance of the Stroop color-naming task leads to dilution of the Stroop effect. Because the automatic activation of word meaning may interfere with the task-relevant stimulus feature (text color; stimulus-stimulus [S-S] interference) and the response (saying the text color; stimulus-response [S-R] interference), it is unclear which of these types of interference is diluted. We introduce a new dilution paradigm using word- and arrow-based Simon tasks, in which only S-R interference is present. Participants made a left or right response to a central color target. A task-irrelevant location-word (Experiment 1) or arrow (Experiment 2) distractor adjacent to the target produced S-R compatibility effects. An additional neutral word or symbol series (diluter) was sometimes presented on the opposite side of the target from the distractor. The compatibility effect was smaller when the distractor and diluter category domains matched than when they mismatched. This result provides evidence that S-R compatibility effects are susceptible to the presence of diluters that are categorically similar to the distractors.     

整体-局部范式下的负启动效应

在通常的负启动范式基础上 ,以小数字构成的大数字 ,即以同时具有整体特征和局部特征的复合数字为实验材料 ,采用数字命名任务 ,将刺激画面中复合数字的数目和注意指向作为变量进行实验。大学生充任被试。结果发现 ,在单个复合数字条件下对同一客体的非注意指向的特征进行忽略重复 ,注意整体时出现负启动 ,而注意局部时不出现负启动 ;在两个复合数字条件下对启动刺激中充当干扰项的复合数字进行忽略重复 ,则注意整体与注意局部都出现了负启动。该研究表明 ,在不同注意指向时 ,整体 -局部范式下的负启动效应具有知觉组织的层次性 ,并显示出客体内选择和客体间选择对负启动的不同影响。     

Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action

In a series of three experiments requiring selection of real objects for action, we investigated whether characteristics of the planned action and/or the “affordances” of target and distractor objects affected interference caused by distractors. In all ofthe experiments, the target object was selectedon the basis of colour and was presented alone or with a distractor object. We examined the effect of type of response (button press, grasping, or pointing), object affordances (compatibility with the acting hand, affordances for grasping or pointing), and target/distractor positions (left or right) on distractor interference (reaction time differences between trials with and without distractors). Different patterns of distractor interference were associated with different motor responses. In the button-press conditions of each experiment, distractor interference was largely determined by perceptual salience (e.g., proximity to initial visual fixation). In contrast, in tasks requiring action upon the objects in the array, distractors with handles caused greater interference than those without handles, irrespective of whether the intended action was pointing or grasping. Additionally, handled distractors were relatively more salient when their affordances for grasping were strong (handle direction compatible with the acting hand) than when affordances were weak. These data suggest that attentional highlighting of specific target and distractor features is a function of intended actions.     

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.     

工作记忆表征的激活与抑制状态对注意引导效应的影响

本研究采用双任务范式, 通过定向遗忘任务操纵工作记忆表征状态, 分别在目标无关和目标相关条件下考察工作记忆激活与抑制状态对视觉搜索早期注意引导效应的影响。实验1与实验2发现当工作记忆表征只可能与视觉搜索分心物匹配时(目标无关条件), 处于激活状态的工作记忆表征会引导视觉注意偏向到与之匹配的分心物, 表现出注意引导效应, 而处于抑制状态的工作记忆表征则没有观察到注意引导效应。实验3与实验4发现, 当工作记忆表征有可能与视觉搜索目标匹配时(目标相关条件), 处于激活状态的工作记忆表征能捕获注意, 而处于抑制状态的工作记忆表征只有与视觉搜索目标匹配时, 才表现出对该搜索目标反应的延迟。这些研究的结果表明(1)处于激活状态的工作记忆表征能有效地引导注意偏向到与之匹配的搜索目标或分心物, 并且这种注意引导效应并未受到抑制动机的影响而被消除或反转; (2)处于抑制状态的工作记忆表征能将抑制状态传递到视觉搜索阶段, 并延迟对与之匹配的搜索目标的反应。     

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.     

Assessing the role of orthography in speech perception and production: Evidence from picture–word interference tasks

The effects of orthographic and phonological relatedness between distractor word and object name in a picture–word interference task were investigated. In Experiment 1 distractors were presented visually, and consistent with previous findings, priming effects arising from phonological overlap were modulated by the presence or absence of orthographic similarity between distractor and picture name. This pattern is interpreted as providing evidence for cascaded processing in visual word recognition. In Experiment 2 distractors were presented auditorily, and here priming was not affected by orthographic match or mismatch. These findings provide no evidence for orthographic effects in speech perception and production, contrary to a number of previous reports.     

Localized attentional interference affects object individuation, not feature detection

Modern theorists conceptualize visual selective attention as a competition between object representations for the control of extrastriate receptive fields, an account supported by the finding that attentional selection of one stimulus can degrade processing of nearby stimuli. In the present study the conditions that produce reciprocal interference between attended stimuli are examined. Each display contained either no, one, or two feature-defined target items among an array of homogeneous distractors. Observers performed two tasks, feature detection and object individuation. The feature-detection task required observers to determine if any targets were present within the display. The object-individuation task required observers to determine if the number of targets was exactly two. Spatially mediated interference between target pairs occurred in the object-individuation task, but had no effect on feature detection. Results suggest that localized interference between attended stimuli occurs only when observers are required to resolve the features of individual objects, consistent with the competitive interaction models of attention.     

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.     

Interference and negative priming from ignored distractors: The role of selection difficulty

The relation between distractor interference and negative priming from identical distractors was examined in two experiments. Subjects responded to a target letter, which was indicated by an adjacent bar marker, and attempted to ignore a distracting letter. Onprime trials, distracting letters were either compatible or incompatible with the target, allowing for a measure of interference. On subsequentprobe trials, previously ignored distractors were sometimes presented as targets, allowing for a measure of negative priming. Reducing the spatial separation between targets and distractors on the prime trial increased the magnitude of interferenceand negative priming, but these effects appeared to be independent of each other (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, the prime target location was precued on some trials, but not on others. Precuing attenuated the magnitude of interference, but not that of negative priming effects. This pattern indicates that measures of negative priming and measures of distractor interference on the immediately preceding trial are independent. The results are discussed in terms of a selective inhibition model of selective attention.     

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.     

工作记忆负载对位置干扰子激活加工和抑制加工的影响

针对工作记忆（WM）负载对干扰子加工的影响存在认知控制机制和负载特异机制两种分歧观点的争议及Park等人的负载特异机制研究中存在的不足,文章尝试采用干扰效应和负启动效应双指标考察了三种不同类型的WM负载对位置干扰子加工的影响。结果表明,WM负载对位置干扰子加工的影响存在双重作用机制（认知控制机制和负载特异机制）;目标刺激与干扰子刺激的属性一致时,亦可得出负载特异机制观点,且可将WM任务与选择性注意任务之间竞争的资源锁定为知觉处理资源;导致上述两种观点争议的原因是以往研究未将干扰子加工过程分离为激活加工阶段和抑制加工阶段来考察;用双指标分离干扰子加工阶段的研究思路和方法不但可解决这两种观点的争议且可为两者的统合奠定基础。     

Differences in the strength of distractor inhibition do not affect distractor–response bindings

Distractor inhibition and distractor–response binding were investigated in two experiments by analyzing distractor repetition benefits and their interaction with response repetition effects in a sequential-priming paradigm. Distractor repetition benefits were larger for distractors that were incompatible with the to-be-executed response (task-related distractors) than for distractors that were not assigned to a response (neutral distractors), indicating that the strength of distractor inhibition was a function of response interference for the distractors. In contrast, the distractor–response bindings were found to be of equal strength for both task-related and neutral distractors. Thus, differences in the strengths of distractor inhibition did not affect the integration of distractors with responses into event files. Instead, our results suggest that distractor–response binding and distractor inhibition are independent mechanisms that are recruited for the automatization of behavior and action control.     

Effects of cross-modal and intramodal division of attention on perceptual implicit memory

Extant results motivate 3 hypotheses on the role of attention in perceptual implicit memory. The first proposes that only intramodal manipulations of attention reduce perceptual priming. The second attributes reduced priming to the effects of distractor selection operating in a central bottleneck process. The third proposes that manipulations of attention only affect priming via disrupted stimulus identification. In Experiment 1, a standard cross-modal manipulation did not disrupt priming in perceptual identification. However, when study words and distractors were presented synchronously, cross-modal and intramodal distraction reduced priming. Increasing response frequency in the distractor task produced effects of attention regardless of target-distractor synchrony. These effects generalized to a different category of distractors arguing against domain-specific interference. The results support the distractor-selection hypothesis.     

Revisiting the role of probe distractors in negative priming: Location negative priming is observed when probe distractors are consistently absent

Negative priming (NP) refers to the delayed response to a probe target that was previously a prime distractor. One peculiar problem in NP literature is the observation that the manifestation of identity NP is contingent on the presence and type of probe distractors. When the probe distractors were completely removed, positive priming, rather than NP, was usually observed. This study investigated whether location NP was affected by the same manipulations. The proportion of ignored repetition trials, attended repetition trials, and control trials was manipulated across Experiments 1–3. These three experiments showed reliable location NP effect when the probe distractor was consistently absent. Experiment 4 showed that the presence of probe distractors did not increase the magnitude of the location NP effect. Experiment 5 showed that the location NP effect observed was not contingent on perceptual mismatching. These findings suggest that the presence of probe distractors is not a necessary component for the manifestation of location NP. Theoretical implications were discussed.     

Perceptual grouping and visual selective attention

The present study demonstrates that incongruent distractor letters at a constant distance from a target letter produce more response competition and negative priming when they share a target’s color than when they have a different color. Moreover, perceptual grouping by means of color, attenuated the effects of spatial proximity. For example, when all items were presented in the same color, near distractors produced more response competition and negative priming than far distractors (Experiment 3A). However, when near distractors were presented in a different color and far distractors were presented in the same color as the target, the response competition × distractor proximity interaction was eliminated and the proximity × negative priming interaction was reversed (Experiment 3B). A final experiment demonstrated that distractors appearing on the same object as a selected target produced comparable amounts of response competition and negative priming whether they were near or far from the target. This suggests that the inhibitory mechanisms of visual attention can be directed to perceptual groups/objects in the environment and not only to unsegmented regions of visual space.