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.     

Cross-dimensional interference and cross-trial inhibition

In two experiments, we examined whether one source of cross-dimensional interference in visual search involves cross-trial position priming. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated cross-dimensional interference in search for an orientation-defined target: Search for a left-tilted target among right-tilted non-targets was disrupted by the presence of a singleton color distractor. In all conditions, search was facilitated when a target was presented at the same position as a target in the previous trial (positive position priming). In addition, there were negative effects of position priming on orientation targets that fell on the same side as singleton distractors on the previous trial. In Experiment 2, to examine the impact of negative position priming on cross-dimensional interference, trials with and without singleton distractors were presented in a single trial block. The chance of a singleton distractor's being present on a preceding trial was then equated across displays when the distractor was and when it was not subsequently present. Cross-dimensional interference was eliminated under this mixed presentation condition, suggesting that the cost of cross-dimensional interference was not determined by the stimulus-driven factors in the current trial, at least when a limited number of target and distractor locations was used. We conclude that top-down selection is possible during visual search, and this leads to inhibition of the location of salient distractors. The cost of this is slowed detection of targets at inhibited locations on subsequent trials.     

Reducing color-color interference by optimizing selection for action

Color-color interference refers to the finding that the naming of a target color is hampered by the simultaneous presentation of an incongruent distractor color somewhere else in the visual field. This interference effect has been attributed to an imperfect input selection (selection-for-processing). We test an alternative account in which it is assumed that (a) target and distractor are identified in parallel without mutual interference, (b) the identified target color has to be selected to control the naming response (selection-for-action), and (c) this selection process takes more time and is less accurate in the incongruent condition than in the control conditions. Experiment 1 shows that color-color interference is obtained when a target color, presented at the point of fixation, is flanked by incongruent colors. In Experiments 2 and 3, the central target position is indicated by an additional exogenous selection cue. The results show that an abrupt-onset cue, presented at the central target position 160 ms after the onset of the target and distractors, reduces the interference effect. This finding is interpreted as supporting evidence for a selection-for-action account of color-color interference.     

Priming and intrusion errors in RSVP streams with two response dimensions

Loach and Marí-Beffa (Vis Cogn, 10:513-526, 2003) observed that a distractor stimulus, presented immediately after a behaviorally relevant target stimulus, negatively primed a related probe stimulus indicating that the distractor had been inhibited. They argued that "post-target inhibition" may be a mechanism for preventing interference from temporally proximal stimuli; interference that could potentially result in a binding/intrusion error. In order to test this hypothesis, the authors carried out two rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) experiments in which participants had to report either the identity (Experiment 1) or color (Experiment 2) of a target letter surrounded by distractor letters. In Experiment 1, a close relationship between priming and errors was observed. When a distractor stimulus showed evidence of being inhibited the participant was less likely to commit a binding error. The opposite was true when a distractor stimulus showed evidence of being facilitated. The results of Experiment 2 showed limited evidence of the same relationship.     

Spatiotemporal competition and task-relevance shape the spatial distribution of emotional interference during rapid visual processing: Evidence from gaze-contingent eye-tracking

People’s ability to perceive rapidly presented targets can be disrupted both by voluntary encoding of a preceding target and by spontaneous attention to salient distractors. Distinctions between these sources of interference can be found when people search for a target in multiple rapid streams instead of a single stream: voluntary encoding of a preceding target often elicits subsequent perceptual lapses across the visual field, whereas spontaneous attention to emotionally salient distractors appears to elicit a spatially localized lapse, giving rise to a theoretical account suggesting that emotional distractors and subsequent targets compete spatiotemporally during rapid serial visual processing. We used gaze-contingent eye-tracking to probe the roles of spatiotemporal competition and memory encoding on the spatial distribution of interference caused by emotional distractors, while also ruling out the role of eye-gaze in driving differences in spatial distribution. Spontaneous target perception impairments caused by emotional distractors were localized to the distractor location regardless of where participants fixated. But when emotional distractors were task-relevant, perceptual lapses occurred across both streams while remaining strongest at the distractor location. These results suggest that spatiotemporal competition and memory encoding reflect a dual-route impact of emotional stimuli on target perception during rapid visual processing.     

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.     

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.     

Selective attention and interhemispheric response competition in the split-brain

The interfering effect of an unattended stimulus on processing of an attended item was studied in a single split-brain participant (LB) and in normal controls. Pairs of letters were presented to the left visual field (LVF), right visual field (RVF), or bilaterally. Participants attended to the rightmost letter while attempting to ignore the leftmost letter. Responses associated with the attended and to-be-ignored letters could be compatible or incompatible. Manual response latencies were generally slower on Response Incompatible compared to Response Compatible trials. Notably, LB displayed this effect on Bilateral trials, where target and distractor were presented to opposite visual fields. LB was unable to perform a same-different matching task with bilateral letter stimuli, but was able to name bilateral letters accurately. Hence, in the bilateral condition, the ability to cross-compare letters was dissociated from attentional interference and from letter naming. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

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.     

Tactile pattern perception by two fingers: Temporal interference and response competition

The identification of a spatial pattern (target) presented to one fingerpad may be interfered with by the presentation of a second pattern (nontarget) to either the same fingerpad or a second fingerpad. A portion of the interference appears to be due to masking and a portion to response competition. In the present study, vibrotactile spatial patterns were designed to extend over two fingerpads. Target and nontarget patterns were presented to the same two fingerpads with a temporal separation between the two patterns. The function relating target identification to the temporal separation between the target and nontarget was very similar to the functions obtained with one-finger patterns in temporal masking studies. Subsequent measurements showed that a substantial portion of the interference resulted from response competition. Pattern categorization was better when patterns were presented to two fingers on opposite hands than to two fingers on the same hand; however, there was more interference for patterns presented bilaterally than for patterns presented ipsilaterally. The results supported the conclusion that similar processes are involved in the perception of sequences of spatial patterns whether the patterns are presented to one or to two fingers.     

工作记忆表征捕获眼动中的颜色优先性

刺激属性所具有的引导效力在工作记忆表征自上而下地引导注意捕获过程中起重要作用, 已有研究表明工作记忆表征的颜色属性在引导注意时具有一定的优势。研究采用工作记忆任务与视觉搜索任务相结合的双任务范式, 结合眼动追踪技术, 通过设置具有较强引导效力的颜色属性与朝向属性进行直接竞争的实验条件, 进一步考察工作记忆表征的颜色属性是否依然具有优先性。实验1发现工作记忆表征的颜色属性与朝向属性同时竞争眼动捕获时, 颜色属性表现出较强的优势, 而朝向属性单独呈现时并未表现出任何捕获效应。实验2与3进一步证实了颜色属性捕获眼动的优先性, 即当颜色属性在面临作为靶子属性的朝向属性的竞争时, 依然能捕获更多的注视点。这些结果直接证实了工作记忆表征的颜色属性在工作记忆表征的捕获眼动的过程中具有较强的引导效力, 相对于其他刺激属性(如朝向、形状)更具有优先性。     

奖赏预期调节局部注意干扰效应

局部注意干扰效应(Localized attentional interference, LAI)是指在视觉搜索任务中同时搜索在空间上分离的两个目标时, 或者目标周围存在一个无关奇异项时, 这两个关键刺激相距较近时产生的干扰现象。本实验采用视觉搜索范式, 探讨了奖赏预期对局部注意干扰效应的影响。实验1采用双目标搜索任务, 要求被试判断搜索画面中两个奇异项刺激的形状是否相同。结果显示奖赏条件和无奖赏条件都表现出显著的距离主效应, 随着目标间距离增大, 被试的正确率提高, 反应时下降。同时, 在远距离时, 奖赏条件下的正确率高于无奖赏条件, 而在近距离时, 奖赏条件下的正确率反而低于无奖赏条件, 即, 奖赏条件下局部注意干扰效应反而增大。高动机状态增强了两个目标的表征, 反而不利于解决局部注意干扰效应。实验2采用单目标搜索任务, 要求被试判断特定目标的方位并忽略另一无关奇异项刺激。与实验1不同的是, 实验2仅在无奖赏条件下观察到显著的距离主效应, 即被试行为表现在远距离时更好; 而在奖赏条件下, 被试在近距离和远距离的表现一样好, 即没有局部注意干扰效应。这说明在奖赏预期条件, 个体可以有效抑制分心物刺激的干扰, 将注意集中于目标刺激的加工, 从而对局部注意干扰效应产生调节。整个研究表明, 奖赏整体上能够提高对任务相关刺激的表征, 并抑制任务无关刺激, 虽然这并不总是能够提高任务表现。     

Extinction-like effects in normals: independence of localization and response selection

An extinction-like effect in normal subjects was previously elicited when a low-salience target in the left was simultaneously presented with a highly salient distractor in the right visual hemifield, but not vice versa (Pollmann, 1996). We investigated in four experiments whether this extinction-like effect depends on (a) explicit localization and (b) response competition. It was found that the extinction-like effect could be replicated in the absence of both. In contradistinction to our previous results, low-salience distractors had no effect on pop-out target search. This showed that explicit spatial localization demands lead to low-salience distractor interference on pop-out search.     

The imbalance of oculomotor capture in unilateral visual neglect

Visual neglect has been associated with an imbalance in the level of activity in the saccadic system: activity in the contralesional field is suppressed, which makes target selection unlikely. We recorded eye movements of a patient with hemispatial neglect and a group of healthy participants during an oculomotor distractor paradigm. Results showed that the interfering effects of a distractor were very strong when presented in her ipsilesional visual field. However, when the distractor was presented in her contralesional field, there were no interfering effects when the target was presented in her ipsilesional field. These findings could not be explained by the presence of a visual field defect as revealed by the results of two hemianopic patients. Our results are in line with an imbalance in the level of activity in the saccadic system in visual neglect because visual elements presented in the contralesional field did not compete for saccadic selection.     

Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence reveals the effects of trait anxiety on contingent attentional capture

Few studies have investigated the effects of anxiety on contingent attentional capture. The present study examined contingent attentional capture in trait anxiety by applying a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) paradigm during electroencephalographic recording. Overall, the behavioral and electrophysiological results showed a larger capture effect when a distractor was the same color as the target compared to when the distractor was not of the target color. Moreover, high-anxiety individuals showed a larger N2pc in the target colored distractor condition and nontarget colored distractor condition compared to the distractor-absent condition. In addition, the reaction time was slower when distractors were presented in the left visual field compared to when they were in the right visual field. This pattern was not seen in low-anxiety individuals. The findings may indicate that high-anxiety individuals allocate attention to the target less efficiently and have reduced suppression of distractors compared to low-anxiety individuals who could suppress attention to the distractors more efficiently. Future work could valuably investigate the consequences of such differences in terms of benefits and disruption associated with attentional capture differences in a range of anxious populations in different risk monitoring situations.     

预期对注意的影响受制于被预期主体是目标还是分心物

以往研究表明, 预期机制和注意机制都能促进感知行为, 但两者以何种方式共同作用于感知行为仍然存在争议, 特别是, 对于预期主体在其中的作用尚不清楚。本研究采用空间提示以及视觉搜索相结合的范式, 通过4个实验, 考察了当被试对目标进行预期以及对分心物进行预期时, 空间预期对空间注意效应的不同影响。结果显示：(1)当目标为预期主体时, 预期对注意效应具有调节作用; (2)当分心物为预期主体时, 预期与注意的作用独立; (3)当目标为预期主体时, 通过刺激数增加而导致的任务难度变化不影响预期和注意之间的关系。这表明, 空间预期是否影响空间注意效应受制于预期主体——当预期主体为目标时, 预期和注意两者交互式地影响感知行为; 当预期主体为分心物时, 预期和注意独立地影响感知行为; 而且, 预期和注意之间的关系不受任务难度影响。     

Grasping remaps the distribution of visuospatial attention and enhances competing action activation

We examined how action goals influence the distribution of visuospatial attention near the body (Experiment 1) and how the temporal relationship between distractors and targets modifies shifts in visuospatial attention (Experiment 2). Targets were light emitting diodes (LEDs) in the left and right hemispace of a visual display. Following left or right target illumination, participants reached to point-to or grasp target object in blocked trials. Coincident with target onset, a distractor LED illuminated in the same or opposite hemispace between the initiation point and target, or no distractor appeared. In Experiment 1, during grasping there was a larger temporal interference effect (slower reach initiation) than with pointing. When grasping versus pointing, participants deviated more towards same-side distractors and away from opposite-side distractors. In Experiment 2, distractors onset 200ms prior to (?200-ms), coincident with (0 ms), or 200ms following (+200 ms) the target. For both reach types, ?200-ms distractors had greater onset temporal interference than 0 ms and +200-ms distractors. For grasping, +200 ms distractors had larger temporal interference than 0 ms distractors. For ?200-ms, reach trajectories deviated more towards opposite-side distractors and away from same-side distractors, the reverse of the pattern for 0 ms and +200-ms distractors.     

Current versus past ambiguity in intertrial priming

Visual search is speeded when the target is repeated from trial to trial compared to when it changes, suggesting that selective attention learns from previous events. Such intertrial effects are stronger when there is more competition for selection, for example in ambiguous displays where the target is accompanied by a salient distractor. Here we investigate whether this is because the competition strengthens the learning itself, or because it allows for a learned representation to exert a greater effect. The results point to the latter. Observers looked for a colour-defined target that could repeat or change from trial to trial. A salient distractor could be present on the current trial, the previous trial, both, or neither. Intertrial effects were greater when a distractor was present on the current trial, suggesting that a primed target representation is more beneficial under conditions of competition. In contrast, distractor presence on the previous trial had no effects whatsoever, indicating that the learning process itself is not affected by competition. This suggests that the source of the learning resides at postselection stages, whereas the effects may occur at the perceptual level.     

Semantic interference from visual object recognition on visual imagery

A new technique for examining the interaction between visual object recognition and visual imagery is reported. The "image-picture interference" paradigm requires participants to generate and make a response to a mental image of a previously memorized object, while ignoring a simultaneously presented picture distractor. Responses in 2 imagery tasks (making left-right higher spatial judgments and making taller-wider judgments) were longer when the simultaneous picture distractor was categorically related to the target distractor relative to unrelated and neutral target-distractor combinations. In contrast, performance was not influenced in this way when the distractor was a related word, when a semantic categorization decision was made to the target, or when distractor and target were visually but not categorically related to one another. The authors discuss these findings in terms of the semantic representations shared by visual object recognition and visual imagery that mediate performance.     

The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays

Circular visual displays of 12 elements, consisting of A, H, M, and U, were presented to S. She responded with a lever movement in one direction if a given letter designated by a bar indicator was a member of the set A-U and in the opposite direction if it was from the other set. The principal experimental variables were the SOA by which the indicator preceded the display and whether the target letter was flanked by letters of the same or opposite set. The results indicated that the interference produced by noise letters is primarily on the response as opposed to the processing side. Also, there is a limit to the precision of selective attention in the visual field. The interference of opposite-set letters was inversely proportional to their distance from the target.