Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy

Prominent models of attentional control assert a dichotomy between top-down and bottom-up control, with the former determined by current selection goals and the latter determined by physical salience. This theoretical dichotomy, however, fails to explain a growing number of cases in which neither current goals nor physical salience can account for strong selection biases. For example, equally salient stimuli associated with reward can capture attention, even when this contradicts current selection goals. Thus, although 'top-down' sources of bias are sometimes defined as those that are not due to physical salience, this conception conflates distinct--and sometimes contradictory--sources of selection bias. We describe an alternative framework, in which past selection history is integrated with current goals and physical salience to shape an integrated priority map.     

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.     

Don’t let it distract you: how information about the availability of reward affects attentional selection

Previous research has shown that attentional selection is affected by reward contingencies: previously selected and rewarded stimuli continue to capture attention even if the reward contingencies are no longer in place. In the current study, we investigated whether attentional selection also is affected by stimuli that merely signal the magnitude of reward available on a given trial but, crucially, have never had instrumental value. In a series of experiments, we show that a stimulus signaling high reward availability captures attention even when that stimulus is and was never physically salient or part of the task set, and selecting it is harmful for obtaining reward. Our results suggest that irrelevant reward-signaling stimuli capture attention, because participants have learned about the relationship between the stimulus and reward. Importantly, we only observed learning after initial attentional prioritization of the reward signaling stimulus. We conclude that nonsalient, task-irrelevant but reward-signaling stimuli can affect attentional selection above and beyond top-down or bottom-up attentional control, however, only after such stimuli were initially prioritized for selection.     

Salience drives overt selection of two equally relevant visual targets

In the present study, we investigated whether salience determines the sequence of selection when participants search for two equally relevant visual targets. To do this, attentional selection was tracked overtly as observers inspected two items of differing physical salience: one a highly salient color singleton, and the other a less salient shape singleton. Participants were instructed to make natural eye movements in order to determine whether two line segments contained within the two singletons were oriented in the same or in different directions. Because both singleton items were task-relevant, participants had no reason to inspect one item before the other. As expected, observers fixated both targets on the majority of trials. Critically, saccades to the color singleton preceded saccades to the less salient shape singleton on the majority of trials. This demonstrates that the order of attentional object selection is largely determined by stimulus salience when task relevance is equated.     

The role of attention level in the attentional boost effect

ABSTRACT

Previous studies reported a memory facilitation effect in which increased attention to one task facilitates the memory performance on another. Here we examined the characteristics of this “attentional boost effect” (ABE), and demonstrated how attention level during memory encoding influences the ABE strength by changing the occurring frequency of the attention-engaging target signal relative to the non-attention-engaging distractor signal (Experiment 1), and the physical salience of colour of the target signal (Experiment 2). The results indicated stronger ABE in conditions with a low ratio of target signal trials and with a salient target signal. Experiment 3 examined the role of spatial attention, which sought to measure how the distance between the target signal and the to-be-encoded item would influence the ABE strength. The results showed that the ABE strength was not influenced by the distance between the two. Overall, these findings suggest ABE may be mainly based on temporal attention.     

Salient stimuli capture attention and action

Reaction times in a visual search task increase when an irrelevant but salient stimulus is presented. Recently, the hypothesis that the increase in reaction times was due to attentional capture by the salient distractor has been disputed. We devised a task in which a search display was shown after observers had initiated a reaching movement toward a touch screen. In a display of vertical bars, observers had to touch the oblique target while ignoring a salient color singleton. Because the hand was moving when the display appeared, reach trajectories revealed the current selection for action. We observed that salient but irrelevant stimuli changed the reach trajectory at the same time as the target was selected, about 270 ms after movement onset. The change in direction was corrected after another 160 ms. In a second experiment, we compared manual selection of color and orientation targets and observed that selection occurred earlier for color than for orientation targets. Salient stimuli support faster selection than do less salient stimuli. Under the assumption that attentional selection for action and perception are based on a common mechanism, our results suggest that attention is indeed captured by salient stimuli.     

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.     

On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus-driven attentional capture.

It is often assumed that the efficient detection of salient visual objects in search reflects stimulus-driven attentional capture. Evidence for this assumption, however, comes from tasks in which the salient object is task relevant and therefore may elicit a deliberate deployment of attention. In 9 experiments, participants searched for a nonsalient target (vertical among tilted bars). In each display, 1 bar was highly salient in a different dimension (e.g., color or motion). When the target and salient elements coincided only rarely, reducing the incentive to attend deliberately to the salient stimuli, response times depended little on whether the target was salient, although some interesting exceptions were observed. It is concluded that efficient selection of an element in visual search does not constitute evidence that the element captures attention in a purely stimulus-driven fashion.     

视觉注意捕获的快速脱离假说与信号抑制假说

快速脱离假说和信号抑制假说都是将传统的自下而上捕获和自上而下控制结合起来的混合模式假说。快速脱离假说认为突显干扰物总能在第一时间自下而上地捕获注意, 当突显干扰物与任务要求不符时, 注意会迅速脱离该位置。信号抑制假说认为突显干扰物都会产生“注意我”的信号, 当突显干扰物与任务要求不符时, 该信号会被自上而下地抑制以阻止注意捕获发生。前者相关的研究多采用空间线索提示范式和眼动脱离范式, 实验中被试采取独子探测策略, 而后者相关的研究多采用额外单例范式的变式, 实验中被试采取特征探测策略。未来研究应采用不同的刺激类型和实验方法进一步为两个假说提供证据支持, 同时要关注奖赏、训练等因素对“捕获-脱离”和“信号-抑制”的影响。     

Why does a red snake in the grass capture your attention?

It has been suggested that affective stimuli automatically capture attention; this preferential processing is thought to be related to the evolutionary significance of affective stimuli. However, recent evidence suggests that perceptual salience alone might explain why some affective stimuli are more likely to influence attentional processes in certain contexts. In this study, we manipulated affective and perceptual salience to better understand how affective information is processed and how it impacts attentional processes in different contexts. We used stimuli that are both affectively and perceptually salient, while varying the task requirement to encourage the processing of perceptually salient (Experiment 1) or affectively salient (Experiment 2) information. This design made it possible to observe independent and interdependent relationships between perceptual and affective salience. The results showed that when the task encouraged the processing of perceptually salient information, affective salience did not influence task performance. In contrast, when the task encouraged the processing of affectively salient information, affectively salient information impaired task performance. The findings suggest that the affective nature of the stimuli does not always influence attentional processes.     

Valuable orientations capture attention

Visual attention has long been known to be drawn to stimuli that are physically salient or congruent with task-specific goals. Several recent studies have shown that attention is also captured by stimuli that are neither salient nor task relevant, but that are rendered in a colour that has previously been associated with reward. We investigated whether another feature dimension—orientation—can be associated with reward via learning and thereby elicit value-driven attentional capture. In a training phase, participants received a monetary reward for identifying the colour of Gabor patches exhibiting one of two target orientations. A subsequent test phase in which no reward was delivered required participants to search for Gabor patches exhibiting one of two spatial frequencies (orientation was now irrelevant to the task). Previously rewarded orientations robustly captured attention. We conclude that reward learning can imbue features other than colour—in this case, specific orientations—with persistent value.     

Salience-based progression of visual attention: Time course

In a visual search task, visual attention progresses from the most to the least salient item until a target is found. The time course of such salience-based progression remains unclear although the temporal deployment seems as crucial as the spatial deployment. The present study investigated how the general hierarchical pattern takes place. Healthy volunteers were presented with a primed visual search paradigm in which the primes consisted of three items differing in salience for either 33, 50 or 100 ms. Subsequently one of them became the target and participants had to make a judgment about it. In order to progress on the basis of salience, attention seemed first to be captured by the most salient item. Secondly, the first two most salient items seemed both encompassed within the attentional spotlight. At that time, the least salient item seemed inhibited, completing the stepwise progression of attention. In summary, our data suggest that the hierarchical pattern is built up over time through orienting and expansion of the spotlight, and inhibition of the least salient signals. Furthermore, complementary analyses revealed a proximity effect influencing the selection of the next location to visit. As predicted by different computational models, items located closely to the first visited location were more prone to attract attention than distant items but interestingly enough, this effect only applied to the least salient item suggesting a balance between salience and proximity criteria. Critically also, salience and proximity effects seem to have different time courses. Results are only partially explained by current visual attention models and require further investigation.     

Novelty and saliency in attentional capture by unannounced motion singletons

The present study examined attentional capture by an unannounced motion singleton in a visual search task. The results showed that a motion singleton only captured attention on its first unannounced occurrence when the observers had not encountered moving items before in the experiment, whereas it failed to capture when observers were familiar with moving items. This indicates that motion can capture attention independently of top-down attentional control settings, but only when motion as a feature is unexpected and new. An additional experiment tested whether salient items can capture attention when all stimuli possess new and unexpected features, and novelty information cannot guide attention. The results showed that attention was shifted to the location of the salient item when all items were new and unexpected, reinforcing the view that salient items receive attentional priority. The implications of these results for current theories of attention are discussed.     

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.     

The initial stage of visual selection is controlled by top-down task set: new ERP evidence

Salient visual singleton stimuli produce spatial cueing effects indicative of attentional capture only when they match current task sets, suggesting that capture is subject to top-down control. However, such task-set contingent capture effects could be associated with the top-down controlled disengagement of attention from non-matching stimuli that follows their initial bottom-up salience-driven selection. Using the N2pc component as an event-related potential marker of attentional capture, we demonstrate that top-down task set already controls the initial rapid selection of salient visual singleton stimuli prior to any subsequent attentional disengagement. These findings provide new evidence for the primacy of top-down control over bottom-up salience in attentional capture.     

Meaning guides attention during scene viewing,even when it is irrelevant

During real-world scene viewing, humans must prioritize scene regions for attention. What are the roles of low-level image salience and high-level semantic meaning in attentional prioritization? A previous study suggested that when salience and meaning are directly contrasted in scene memorization and preference tasks, attentional priority is assigned by meaning (Henderson & Hayes in Nature Human Behavior, 1, 743–747, 2017). Here we examined the role of meaning in attentional guidance using two tasks in which meaning was irrelevant and salience was relevant: a brightness rating task and a brightness search task. Meaning was represented by meaning maps that captured the spatial distribution of semantic features. Meaning was contrasted with image salience, represented by saliency maps. Critically, both maps were represented similarly, allowing us to directly compare how meaning and salience influenced the spatial distribution of attention, as measured by fixation density maps. Our findings suggest that even in tasks for which meaning is irrelevant and salience is relevant, meaningful scene regions are prioritized for attention over salient scene regions. These results support theories in which scene semantics play a dominant role in attentional guidance in scenes.     

Differential impact of emotional task relevance on three indices of prioritised processing for fearful and angry facial expressions

It is commonly assumed that threatening expressions are perceptually prioritised, possessing the ability to automatically capture and hold attention. Recent evidence suggests that this prioritisation depends on the task relevance of emotion in the case of attention holding and for fearful expressions. Using a hybrid attentional blink (AB) and repetition blindness (RB) paradigm we investigated whether task relevance also impacts on prioritisation through attention capture and perceptual salience, and if these effects generalise to angry expressions. Participants judged either the emotion (relevant condition) or gender (irrelevant condition) of two target facial stimuli (fearful, angry or neutral) imbedded in a stream of distractors. Attention holding and capturing was operationalised as modulation of AB deficits by first target (T1) and second target (T2) expression. Perceptual salience was operationalised as RB modulation. When emotion was task-relevant (Experiment 1; N?=?29) fearful expressions captured and held attention, and were more perceptually salient than neutral expressions. Angry expressions captured attention, but were less perceptually salient and capable of holding attention than fearful and neutral expressions. When emotion was task-irrelevant (Experiment 2; N?=?30), only fearful attention capture and perceptual salience effects remained significant. Our findings highlight the importance for threat-prioritisation research to heed both the type of threat and prioritisation investigated.     

积极情绪反馈对注意捕获影响的实验研究

目的：研究采用“学习-测试”范式,通过3个实验探讨积极社会情绪反馈对注意捕获的影响。方法：实验1,在学习阶段做出反应后,分别给予积极情绪和中性情绪反馈,探讨积极情绪和中性情绪捕获注意的情况;实验2,学习阶段做出反应后,没有任何情绪反馈;实验3,改变学习阶段积极情绪和中性情绪反馈图片出现的频率,探讨图片出现频率对注意捕获的影响。结果：（1）与中性情绪相比,积极情绪捕获了较多注意（实验1）;（2）无情绪反馈时,经过多次练习的刺激作为干扰刺激也捕获到了注意（实验2）;（3）积极情绪影响刺激注意优先性的过程还受到积极情绪图片出现频率的影响（实验3）。结论：积极情绪捕获注意的机制中,也有自上而下目标驱动的机制在起作用;情绪图片出现的频率也会影响社社会情绪对注意的捕获。     

Suppression history of distractor location biases attentional and oculomotor control

Past selection experience greatly affects the deployment of attention such that targets are more readily selected if their features or locations were more frequently selected in the past. Crucially, recent studies have shown similar experience-dependent effects also for salient task irrelevant stimuli: distractors exerted less interference if they appeared at a location where they were presented more often, relatively to other possible locations. Here we investigated the effects of such suppression history on the immediate behavioural correlates of attentional deployment, i.e., eye movements. Participants were to make saccadic eye movements to a target stimulus, while ignoring a highly distracting irrelevant visual onset appearing abruptly on the screen in a proportion of trials. Crucially, this irrelevant onset occurred more frequently in two locations on the visual display and our results showed that, relatively to distractors elsewhere, onsets presented at these locations became easier to ignore, giving rise to reduced oculomotor capture. Consistent with the notion that experience can alter attentional deployment towards spatial locations, these findings indicate that, through learning, the priority of high frequency locations becomes suppressed, attenuating the intrinsic saliency of distractors appearing therein. Traces left by individual events of attentional suppression decrease the processing priority of coordinates within topographic maps of the visual space.     

Reward history but not search history explains value-driven attentional capture

In past years, an extensive amount of research has focused on how past experiences guide future attention. Humans automatically attend to stimuli previously associated with reward and stimuli that have been experienced during visual search, even when it is disadvantageous in present situations. Recently, the relationship between “reward history” and “search history” has been discussed critically. We review results from research on value-driven attentional capture (VDAC) with a focus on these two experience-based attentional selection processes and their distinction. To clarify inconsistencies, we examined VDAC within a design that allows a direct comparison with other mechanisms of attentional selection. Eighty-four healthy adults were trained to incidentally associate colors with reward (10 cents, 2 cents) or with no reward. In a subsequent visual search task, distraction by reward-associated and unrewarded stimuli was contrasted. In the training phase, reward signals facilitated performance. When these value-signaling stimuli appeared as distractors in the test phase, they continuously shaped attentional selection, despite their task irrelevance. Our findings clearly cannot be attributed to a history of target search. We conclude that once an association is established, value signals guide attention automatically in new situations, which can be beneficial or not, depending on the congruency with current goals.