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.     

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.     

Abrupt onsets capture attention independent of top-down control settings II: Additivity is no evidence for filtering

Is attentional capture contingent on top-down control settings or involuntarily driven by salient stimuli? Supporting the stimulus-driven attentional capture view, Schreij, Owens, and Theeuwes (2008) found that an onset distractor caused a response delay, in spite of participants’ having adopted an attentional set for a color feature. However, Folk, Remington, and Wu (2009) claimed that this delay reflects separate, nonspatial filtering costs instead, because the onset effects were additive with color-based capture effects, and capture should have caused underadditivity. The present Experiment 1 shows that contingent capture caused by additional color cues is also additive, just like the onset effect. This makes additivity a dubious diagnostic with regard to spatial capture. Experiment 2 demonstrates that it is possible to obtain underadditivity when attention-demanding distractors have sufficient capturing power. Experiment 3 shows that the abrupt onset interference turns into a benefit when the locations of the onset and the target coincide. Together, these results argue in favor of stimulus-driven attentional capture by abrupt onsets.     

The size of an attentional window modulates attentional capture by color singletons

Researchers have proposed that during visual search, a color singleton cannot capture attention in a bottom-up fashion (Jonides & Yantis, 1988). In the present study, we manipulated the size of the attentional window by asking participants to detect either a global (diffuse attention) or a local (focused attention) shape before starting the search for a nonsingleton target. We demonstrate that increasing the size of attentional window causes the observers to frequently orient to an irrelevant color singleton. We conclude that although the size of attentional window might be under a top-down control, within the attentional window, an irrelevant salient singleton can capture attention in a bottom-up fashion.     

Irrelevant singletons in pop-out search: attentional capture or filtering costs?

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether costs invoked by the presence of an irrelevant singleton distractor in a visual search task are due to attentional capture by the irrelevant singleton or spatially unrelated filtering costs. Measures of spatial effects were based on distance effects, compatibility effects, and differences between singleton and nonsingleton target trials. The results show that the distractor only regularly captures attention when it is nonpredictive of the target position and unpredictably changes its features. When the distractor is antipredictive of the target position and the irrelevant features of target and distractor remain constant throughout the experiment, spatially unrelated filtering costs prevail. Further experiments showed that filtering costs accrue from distractor inhibition or target activation processes, which in turn can be modeled as instances of priming of pop-out. The present study thus clarifies the notion of filtering costs and modifies present accounts of the distraction effect. Moreover, the results also relate to research of intertrial priming by showing that priming affects the stage of attentional selection and depends on top-down attentional control settings.     

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.     

Nonspatial interdimensional attentional capture

Accuracy in identifying a target is impaired by a task-irrelevant singleton distractor even when the target and distractor appear in the same location. However, whether this impairment, known as a nonspatial interdimensional attentional capture, is contingent on a top-down attentional set or determined by stimulus-driven signals from distractors is unclear. To examine whether interdimensional attentional capture is affected by a top-down attentional set, the present study explicitly manipulated observers’ search strategies (the singleton detection or feature search modes) and the number of objects consisting of the search items. The results indicated that interdimensional attentional capture occurred even under the feature search mode but that the capture effect decreased under this search mode irrespective of the number of distractors, suggesting that top-down knowledge was effective in modulating nonspatial interdimensional capture.     

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.     

Attentional capture is contingent on the interaction between task demand and stimulus salience

The aim of this research was to investigate the potential impacts of task demand and stimulus salience on the stimulus-driven attentional capture effect. The participants performed an inefficient visual search task while an irrelevant luminance singleton was present. In Experiment 1, the task demand was manipulated while the stimulus salience of the irrelevant singleton was fixed. With the same salient singleton, the attentional capture effect was observed in the low-difficulty condition but disappeared in the high-difficulty condition. In Experiment 2, the stimulus salience was manipulated while the task demand was fixed. With the same task, the highly salient singleton captured attention, whereas the relatively lowly salient singleton could not. In Experiment 3, both task demand and stimulus salience were manipulated simultaneously. The stimulus-driven attentional capture effect by the irrelevant singleton increased not only as the task demand decreased but also as the stimulus salience increased. The present study might provide a way to reconcile conflicting findings in the attentional capture literature; the underlying neural mechanism is discussed. 2009 The Psychonomic Society, Inc.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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 capture by color without any relevant attentional set

The aim of the present study was to investigate mechanisms underlying attentional capture by color. Previous work has shown that a color singleton is able to summon attention only in the presence of a relevant attentional set, whereas when a color singleton is not useful for a task, evidence for purely stimulus-driven attentional capture is controversial. Three visual search experiments (T-L task) were conducted using a method different from that based on set sizes, consisting of monitoring target-singleton distance in a unique display size. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated that attention can be summoned in a real stimulus-driven manner by an irrelevant color singleton. Experiment 2A extended this observation, showing that the color singleton attracted attention even when capture was detrimental. However, Experiment 2B showed that such capture can be strategically prevented. Finally, in Experiment 3, we examined whether such a capture was due to a spatial shift or to a filtering cost, providing evidence supporting the shift hypothesis. Stimulus-driven capture was observed when color was neither the defining nor the reported target attribute (Yantis, 1993) and when subjects naive of visual search tasks were used. The present results give experimental support to many contemporary models of visual attention.     

Top-down search strategies determine attentional capture in visual search: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence

To investigate how attentional capture in visual search is affected by generalized top-down search strategies, ERPs and behavioral performance were measured in two experiments where spatially nonpredictive color singleton cues preceded visual search arrays that contained one of two equally likely color singletons. When both singletons served as targets, irrelevant-color singleton cues produced behavioral attentional capture effects and elicited an N2pc component, indicative of a singleton search mode. When responses were required to only one of the two color singletons, the same cues no longer elicited behavioral spatial cuing effects, and the N2pc to these cues was attenuated and delayed, in line with the hypothesis that search was now guided by a feature-specific search strategy. Results demonstrate that the ability of visual singleton stimuli to capture attention is not simply determined by their bottom-up salience, but strongly modulated by top-down task sets.     

自上而下的注意控制定势在注意捕获中的作用

采用经典前线索范式的变式, 通过100%有效的提示考察了自上而下的注意控制定势在注意捕获中的作用。实验1要求被试在整个实验中只搜索一个固定颜色的目标, 但是通过在每个试次前对目标进行提示加强注意控制定势的强度。实验2通过在每个试次中变化要搜索的目标颜色使被试必须建立两个更强的注意控制定势。实验结果一致表明和目标颜色相匹配的线索捕获了注意, 而和目标颜色无关的线索被抑制; 实验2的捕获效应和抑制效应都显著大于实验1; 对无关冲突线索和无关中性线索的注意抑制效应没有差异, 抑制效应显著小于捕获效应。研究表明自上而下的注意控制定势通过把注意从和目标不匹配的特征位置转移发挥作用, 支持注意转移假说; 对匹配线索的捕获和对无关线索的抑制运用了同一加工系统, 抑制作为捕获的附加产品出现, 两者都可以作为注意捕获的指标。     

Temporal attentional capture: Effects of irrelevant singletons on rapid serial visual search

The presence of a unique yet irrelevantsingleton in visual search or spatial-cuing tasks is typically associated with performance costs, suggesting that singletons tend to capture attention. However, since singletons have always been spatially separated from targets in previous experiments, it remains unclear whether an irrelevant visual singleton that occurs at the same spatial location as the target but at a different point in time can produce temporal capture of attention. Here, we asked participants to search visual sequences at fixation for targets defined by size (larger or smaller than the nontargets). The presence (vs. absence) of a color singleton lengthened response times on the size discrimination task, suggesting that irrelevant singletons can lead to a temporal attentional capture.     

Experience-dependent attentional tuning of distractor rejection

Irrelevant salient distractors often capture attention, but given a sufficiently specific search template, these salient items no longer capture attention. In the present experiments, we investigated whether specific target templates are sufficient to resist capture, or whether experience with the salient distractors is also necessary. To test this hypothesis, observers completed four blocks of trials, each with a different-colored irrelevant singleton present on half of the trials. Color singletons captured attention early within a block, but after sufficient experience with the irrelevant singletons, those singletons no longer captured attention in the second halves of the blocks. This result suggests that to resist capture, a specific target template must be accompanied by experience-dependent attentional tuning to distractor properties.     

Attentional capture by singletons is contingent on top-down control settings: Evidence from electrophysiological measures

The present study examined whether the capture of spatial attention is driven by stimulus salience (e.g., object uniqueness) or by a match to current attentional control settings (contingent capture). We measured the N2pc effect, a component of the event-related brain potential thought to reflect lateralized attentional allocation. On every trial, a noninformative cue display containing a colour singleton box was followed by a target display of letters. Participants searched for a target letter in a specified colour (in Experiments 1–3) or within a specified shape (in Experiment 4) while ignoring other stimuli. The key manipulation was whether the singleton cue contained the target-defining feature (e.g., a specific colour). Experiment 1 revealed signs of attention capture—a cue validity effect and an N2pc effect—only for singleton cues that contained the target-defining feature. This pattern persisted even when we increased the salience of the singleton box (Experiments 2 and 3). Irrelevant colour singletons also failed to produce a significant N2pc effect when the target was defined based on shape rather than colour (Experiment 4). We conclude that attention capture is strongly contingent on top-down attentional control settings, not bottom-up stimulus salience.     

Effects of task relevance and stimulus-driven salience in feature-search mode

Attentional allocation in feature-search mode (W. F. Bacon & H. E. Egeth, 1994) is thought to be solely determined by top-down factors, with no role for stimulus-driven salience. The authors reassessed this conclusion using variants of the spatial cuing and rapid serial visual presentation paradigms developed by C. L. Folk and colleagues (C. L. Folk, R. W. Remington, & J. C. Johnston, 1992; C. L. Folk, A. B. Leber, & H. E. Egeth, 2002). They found that (a) a nonsingleton distractor that possesses the target feature produces attentional capture, (b) such capture is modulated by bottom-up salience, and (c) resistance to capture by irrelevant singletons is mediated by inhibitory processes. These results extend the role of top-down factors in search for a nonsingleton target while arguing against the notion that effects of bottom-up salience and top-down factors on attentional priority are strictly encapsulated within distinct search modes.