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.     

Statistical regularities modulate attentional capture independent of search strategy

An earlier study using the additional singleton task showed that statistical regularities regarding the distractor location can cause an attentional bias that affects the amount of attentional capture by distractors and the efficiency of selection of targets. The distractor singleton was systematically present more often in one location than in all other locations. The present study investigated whether this bias also occurs when observers adopt a feature search mode, i.e., when they search for a specific feature (circle) between elements with different shapes, while ignoring a colored distractor singleton. It is assumed that in feature search, observers can ignore distractors in a top-down way and as such one expects that statistical regularities about the distractor location should not play a role. Contrary to this prediction, we found that even in feature search, both attentional capture by the distractors and the efficiency of selecting the target were impacted by these statistical regularities. Moreover, statistical regularities regarding the feature value of the distractor (its color) had no effect on the amount of capture or the efficiency of selection. We claim that statistical regularities cause passive lingering biases of attention such that on the priority map, the location containing a high probability distractor competes less for attention than locations that are less likely to contain distractors.     

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.     

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.     

不同搜索情境下老化对自上而下注意加工的影响

在视觉搜索过程中,老年人是否可以在不同情境下调节自上而下和自下而上的加工水平尚不明确。为了探讨老化对认知灵活性的影响,研究采用空间线索范式,通过比较有效线索和无效线索来考察对线索的注意加工水平（注意捕获、注意抑制）,通过比较目标相关和目标无关线索的注意加工水平来考察自上而下和自下而上的作用,通过改变分心物一致性来调控不同的目标凸显情境。结果发现,年轻组在目标非凸显时的空间线索效应高于目标凸显时,表明年轻人会依据目标凸显性调整自上而下的加工水平;但老年组却没有产生这种差异,其更依赖自上而下的加工,注意系统会对目标相关的线索进行注意捕获,对目标无关的线索进行注意抑制。结果表明,随着年龄的增长,认知控制的灵活性下降,表现出对自上而下加工较多的依赖;此外,老年人依然保留着注意捕获和注意抑制的能力,这对认知老化中抑制能力受损的观点提出了挑战。     

Contingent attentional capture occurs by activated target congruence

Contingent attentional capture occurs when a stimulus property captures an observer's attention, usually related to the observer's top-down attentional set for target-defining properties. In this study, we examined whether contingent attentional capture occurs for a distractor that does not share the target-defining property at a physical level, but does share that property at an abstract level of representation. In a rapid serial visual presentation stream, we defined the target by color (e.g., a green-colored Japanese kanji character). Before the target onset, we presented a distractor that referred to the target-defining color (e.g., a white-colored character meaning "green"). We observed contingent attentional capture by the distractor, which was reflected by a deficit in identifying the subsequent target. This result suggests that because of the attentional set, stimuli were scanned on the basis of the target-defining property at an abstract semantic level of representation.     

Top-down control over biased competition during covert spatial orienting

Larger benefits of spatial attention are observed when distractor interference is prevalent, supporting the view that spatial selection facilitates visual processing by suppressing distractor interference. The present work shows that cuing effects with identical visual displays can grow substantially as the probability of distractor interference increases. The probability of interference had no impact on spatial cuing effects in the absence of distractors, suggesting that the enlarged cuing effects were not caused by changes in signal enhancement or in the spatial distribution of attention. These findings suggest that attentional control settings determine more than where spatial attention is directed; top-down settings also influence how attention affects visual processing, with increased levels of distractor exclusion when distractor interference is likely.     

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.     

Can new objects override attentional control settings?

Previous research suggests that attentional capture by abrupt onsets is contingent on top-down attentional control settings. Four experiments addressed whether similar contingencies hold for capture elicited by the appearance of new perceptual objects. In a modified spatial cuing task, targets defined by abrupt onset or color were paired with distractors consisting of an abrupt brightening of an existing object or the abrupt appearance of a new object. In Experiments 1 and 2, when subjects searched for an onset target, both distractor types produced evidence of capture. When subjects searched for a color target, however, distractors produced no evidence of attentional capture, regardless of whether they consisted of a new perceptual object or not. Experiments 3-5 showed that the lack of distractor effects in the color-target condition cannot be accounted for by rapid recovery from capture. It was concluded that attentional capture by new objects is subject to top-down modulation by attentional control settings.     

Focal distraction: spatial shifts of attentional focus are not required for contingent capture

Contingent capture occurs when distractors that share the target's defining attribute capture attention and slow down target identification. This slowdown has been attributed to an involuntary attentional shift to the location of a pertinent distractor. The present study examined an additional source of delay: the time spent in processing pertinent distractors. In 7 experiments, distractors were presented at fixation, and targets were presented either at fixation or peripherally. Contingent capture invariably occurred when a salient distractor was presented within about 600 ms before the target, even when spatial shifts in attentional focus were ruled out. A 2-stage model is proposed in which stimuli must pass an input filter tuned to the target's defining attribute before gaining access to a high-level stage that is unavailable while a distractor is being processed.     

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.     

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.     

Target-nontarget similarity decreases search efficiency and increases stimulus-driven control in visual search

Some points of criticism against the idea that attentional selection is controlled by bottom-up processing were dispelled by the attentional window account. The attentional window account claims that saliency computations during visual search are only performed for stimuli inside the attentional window. Therefore, a small attentional window may avoid attentional capture by salient distractors because it is likely that the salient distractor is located outside the window. In contrast, a large attentional window increases the chances of attentional capture by a salient distractor. Large and small attentional windows have been associated with efficient (parallel) and inefficient (serial) search, respectively. We compared the effect of a salient color singleton on visual search for a shape singleton during efficient and inefficient search. To vary search efficiency, the nontarget shapes were either similar or dissimilar with respect to the shape singleton. We found that interference from the color singleton was larger with inefficient than efficient search, which contradicts the attentional window account. While inconsistent with the attentional window account, our results are predicted by computational models of visual search. Because of target–nontarget similarity, the target was less salient with inefficient than efficient search. Consequently, the relative saliency of the color distractor was higher with inefficient than with efficient search. Accordingly, stronger attentional capture resulted. Overall, the present results show that bottom-up control by stimulus saliency is stronger when search is difficult, which is inconsistent with the attentional window account.     

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。     

Age-related effects of attentional and oculomotor capture by onsets and color singletons as a function of experience

The present experiment examined the degree to which experience with different stimulus characteristics affects attentional capture, particularly as related to aging. Participants were presented with onset target/color singleton distractor or color singleton target/onset distractor pairs across three experimental sessions. The target/distractor pairs were reversed in the second session such that the target in the first session became the distractor in the second and third sessions. For both young and old adults previous experience with color as a target defining feature influenced oculomotor capture with task-irrelevant color distractors. Experience with sudden onsets had the same effect for younger and older adults, although capture effects were substantially larger for onset than for color distractors. Experience-based capture effects diminished relatively rapidly after target and distractor-defining properties were reversed. The results are discussed in terms of top-down and stimulus-driven effects on age-related differences in attentional control.     

What does distractibility in ADHD reveal about mechanisms for top-down attentional control?

In this study, we attempted to clarify whether distractibility in ADHD might arise from increased sensory-driven interference or from inefficient top-down control. We employed an attentional filtering paradigm in which discrimination difficulty and distractor salience (amount of image “graying”) were parametrically manipulated. Increased discrimination difficulty should add to the load of top-down processes, whereas increased distractor salience should produce stronger sensory interference. We found an unexpected interaction of discrimination difficulty and distractor salience. For difficult discriminations, ADHD children filtered distractors as efficiently as healthy children and adults; as expected, all three groups were slower to respond with high vs. low salience distractors. In contrast, for easy discriminations, robust between-group differences emerged: ADHD children were much slower and made more errors than either healthy children or adults. For easy discriminations, healthy children and adults filtered out high salience distractors as easily as low salience distractors, but ADHD children were slower to respond on trials with low salience distractors than they did on trials with high salience distractors. These initial results from a small sample of ADHD children have implications for models of attentional control, and ways in which it can malfunction. The fact that ADHD children exhibited efficient attentional filtering when task demands were high, but showed deficient and atypical distractor filtering under low task demands suggests that attention deficits in ADHD may stem from a failure to efficiently engage top-down control rather than an inability to implement filtering in sensory processing regions.     

Interactions between top-down and bottom-up attention in barn owls (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Tyto alba</Emphasis>)

Selective attention, the prioritization of behaviorally relevant stimuli for behavioral control, is commonly divided into two processes: bottom-up, stimulus-driven selection and top-down, task-driven selection. Here, we tested two barn owls in a visual search task that examines attentional capture of the top-down task by bottom-up mechanisms. We trained barn owls to search for a vertical Gabor patch embedded in a circular array of differently oriented Gabor distractors (top-down guided search). To track the point of gaze, a lightweight wireless video camera was mounted on the owl’s head. Three experiments were conducted in which the owls were tested in the following conditions: (1) five distractors; (2) nine distractors; (3) five distractors with one distractor surrounded by a red circle; or (4) five distractors with a brief sound at the initiation of the stimulus. Search times and number of head saccades to reach the target were measured and compared between the different conditions. It was found that search time and number of saccades to the target increased when the number of distractors was larger (condition 2) and when an additional irrelevant salient stimulus, auditory or visual, was added to the scene (conditions 3 and 4). These results demonstrate that in barn owls, bottom-up attention interacts with top-down attention to shape behavior in ways similar to human attentional capture. The findings suggest similar attentional principles in taxa that have been evolutionarily separated for 300 million years.     

Abrupt onsets capture attention independent of top-down control settings

Previous research using a spatial cuing paradigm in which a distractor cue preceded the target has shown that new objects presented with abrupt onsets only capture attention when observers are set to look for them (e.g., Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992). In the present study, we used the same spatial cuing paradigm as Folk et al. (1992) to demonstrate that even when observers have an attentional set for a color singleton or a specific color feature, an irrelevant new object presented with an abrupt onset interfered with search. We also show that the identity of the abrupt-onset distractor affects responses to the target, indicating that at some point spatial attention was allocated to the abrupt onset. We conclude that abrupt onsets ornew objects override a top-down set for color. Abrupt onsets or new objects appear to capture attention independently of top-down control settings.     

无关长时记忆表征能否引导视觉注意选择?

与任务相关的长时记忆表征在引导视觉注意选择的过程中扮演着重要的角色,它可以使人们在熟悉的视觉情境中快速搜索目标刺激,并偏离干扰刺激。但当长时记忆表征与任务无关时,还能否引导视觉注意选择?目前还不清楚。实验1采用眼动追踪技术直接比较无关工作记忆表征与无关长时记忆表征在视觉搜索阶段对视觉注意的捕获效应,行为反应时与首次注视点百分率的结果都发现,当无关工作记忆表征在视觉搜索中再次出现时能引导视觉注意偏向到与之匹配的干扰刺激,但无关长时记忆表征并没有表现出类似的注意引导效应;实验2探讨记忆表征由工作记忆系统转移到长时记忆系统的过程中对视觉注意的引导效应,结果发现,随着记忆表征的转移,注意引导效应消失了,实验3排除工作记忆表征的干扰后,依然没有发现无关长时记忆表征对注意的引导效应。以上结果表明,无关长时记忆表征并不能像工作记忆表征一样引导视觉注意选择,工作记忆表征和长时记忆表征对视觉注意的引导属于两个不同的认知过程。     

Synergy of stimulus-driven salience and goal-directed prioritization: Evidence from the spatial blink

In the spatial blink paradigm, participants search for a target of a designated color in a rapidly presented stream of letters at fixation. Target identification is typically impaired if a peripheral distractor appears shortly before the target, inducing a spatial blink, but impairment is observed only when the distractor also shares the sought-for color. Such results reveal an important top-down influence on the capture of attention. In the present experiments, we examined the influence of the bottom-up transients associated with the appearance and disappearance of distractors in the spatial blink paradigm. Onsets and offsets alone are incapable of inducing a spatial blink, but we found that the presence of such transients did enhance the effects of target-color-matched distractors. The results reveal important synergistic interactions between top-down and bottom-up factors involved in attentional capture.