Task-relevance modulates the effects of peripheral distractors

The current study investigated whether task-relevant information affects performance differently from how information that is not relevant for the task does when presented peripherally and centrally. In three experiments a target appeared inside the focus of attention, whereas a to-be-ignored distractor appeared either in the periphery (Experiments 1 and 2) or at the centre (Experiment 3) of attention. In each trial the distractor carried both task-relevant and irrelevant information. The results confirmed the “task relevance” hypothesis: Task-irrelevant information affected performance only when it appeared at the centre of attention, whereas task-relevant information affected performance when it appeared inside as well as outside the main focus of attention. The current results do not support suggestions that spatial stimuli (e.g., arrows) draw attention automatically regardless of task relevance.     

Task-relevance modulates the effects of peripheral distractors

The current study investigated whether task-relevant information affects performance differently from how information that is not relevant for the task does when presented peripherally and centrally. In three experiments a target appeared inside the focus of attention, whereas a to-be-ignored distractor appeared either in the periphery (Experiments 1 and 2) or at the centre (Experiment 3) of attention. In each trial the distractor carried both task-relevant and irrelevant information. The results confirmed the “task relevance” hypothesis: Task-irrelevant information affected performance only when it appeared at the centre of attention, whereas task-relevant information affected performance when it appeared inside as well as outside the main focus of attention. The current results do not support suggestions that spatial stimuli (e.g., arrows) draw attention automatically regardless of task relevance.     

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.     

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.     

Does ignoring lead to worse evaluations? A new explanation of the stimulus devaluation effect

Affective evaluation of stimuli just seen in visual search tasks has been shown to depend on task-relevant stimulus configuration (Raymond, Fenske, & Tavassoli, 2003): Whereas targets and novel stimuli were evaluated similarly, distractors were devaluated. These results were explained by an inhibition-based account of the influence of selective attention on emotion. In the present experiments, we demonstrated that stimulus devaluation might not be a consequence of attentional inhibition. By simply instructing participants to react to an accepted or rejected stimulus in the visual search task of Experiment 1, we found distractor devaluation in the first case and target devaluation in the second case. We conclude that devaluation of stimuli is mediated by the affective connotation implied by response labels and instructions. This was confirmed in Experiment 2: To-be-ignored stimuli were not devaluated when participants knew that those stimuli would become task-relevant during the experiment.     

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。     

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.     

Attentional capture in driving displays

Drivers face frequent distraction on the roadways, but little is known about situations placing them at risk of misallocating visual attention. To investigate this issue, we asked participants to search for a red target embedded within simulated driving scenes (photographs taken from inside a car) in three experiments. Distraction was induced by presenting, via a GPS unit, red or green distractors positioned in an irrelevant location at which the target never appeared. If the salient distractor captures attention, visual search should be slower on distractor‐present trials than distractor‐absent trials. In Experiment 1, salient distractors yielded no such capture effect. In Experiment 2, we decreased the frequency of the salient distractor from 50% of trials to only 10% or 20% of trials. Capture effects were almost five times larger for the 10% occurrence group than for the 20% occurrence group. In Experiment 3, the amount of available central resources was manipulated by asking participants to either simultaneously monitor or ignore a stream of spoken digits. Capture effects were much larger for the dual‐task group than for the single‐task group. In summary, these findings identify risk factors for attentional capture in real‐world driving scenes: distractor rarity and diversion of attention.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

工作记忆内容驱动完全无关刺激捕获注意

研究通过三个实验以检验工作记忆内容能否自动引导注意选择视场中与之匹配的任务完全无关刺激。实验一要求被试在工作记忆保持阶段完成一个视觉搜索任务，结果发现当搜索序列外的无关干扰刺激与工作记忆内容匹配时搜索绩效显著降低；实验二结果表明该干扰效应不能归因于自下而上的启动机制，因为对颜色刺激仅仅进行知觉辨认而没有工作记忆加工时并没有产生启动效应；实验三通过缩短搜索任务刺激的呈现时间以使得被试在完成搜索任务前没有足够时间眼跳至无关干扰刺激，结果发现了与实验一类似的干扰效应，说明在没有眼跳的情况下与工作记忆内容匹配的完全无关刺激可以捕获注意。这些结果表明保持在工作记忆中的信息表征可以自动引导注意选择视场中与之匹配的任务完全无关刺激，为基于工作记忆内容的注意捕获提供了新证据支持。     

The attentional processes underlying impaired inhibition of threat in anxiety: The remote distractor effect

The current study explored the proposition that anxiety is associated with impaired inhibition of threat. Using a modified version of the remote distractor paradigm, we considered whether this impairment is related to attentional capture by threat, difficulties disengaging from threat presented within foveal vision, or difficulties orienting to task-relevant stimuli when threat is present in central, parafoveal and peripheral locations in the visual field. Participants were asked to direct their eyes towards and identify a target in the presence and absence of a distractor (an angry, happy or neutral face). Trait anxiety was associated with a delay in initiating eye movements to the target in the presence of central, parafoveal and peripheral threatening distractors. These findings suggest that elevated anxiety is linked to difficulties inhibiting task-irrelevant threat presented across a broad region of the visual field.     

The attentional processes underlying impaired inhibition of threat in anxiety: the remote distractor effect

The current study explored the proposition that anxiety is associated with impaired inhibition of threat. Using a modified version of the remote distractor paradigm, we considered whether this impairment is related to attentional capture by threat, difficulties disengaging from threat presented within foveal vision, or difficulties orienting to task-relevant stimuli when threat is present in central, parafoveal and peripheral locations in the visual field. Participants were asked to direct their eyes towards and identify a target in the presence and absence of a distractor (an angry, happy or neutral face). Trait anxiety was associated with a delay in initiating eye movements to the target in the presence of central, parafoveal and peripheral threatening distractors. These findings suggest that elevated anxiety is linked to difficulties inhibiting task-irrelevant threat presented across a broad region of the visual field.     

On the inability to ignore touch when responding to vision in the crossmodal congruency task

We investigated the extent to which people can selectively ignore distracting vibrotactile information when performing a visual task. In Experiment 1, participants made speeded elevation discrimination responses (up vs. down) to a series of visual targets presented from one of two eccentricities on either side of central fixation, while simultaneously trying to ignore task-irrelevant vibrotactile distractors presented independently to the finger (up) vs. thumb (down) of either hand. Participants responded significantly more slowly, and somewhat less accurately, when the elevation of the vibrotactile distractor was incongruent with that of the visual target than when they were presented from the same (i.e., congruent) elevation. This crossmodal congruency effect was significantly larger when the visual and tactile stimuli appeared on the same side of space than when they appeared on different sides, although the relative eccentricity of the two stimuli within the hemifield (i.e., same vs. different) had little effect on performance. In Experiment 2, participants who crossed their hands over the midline showed a very different pattern of crossmodal congruency effects to participants who adopted an uncrossed hands posture. Our results suggest that both the relative external location and the initial hemispheric projection of the target and distractor stimuli contribute jointly to determining the magnitude of the crossmodal congruency effect when participants have to respond to vision and ignore touch.     

Retinal location and its effect on the spatial distribution of visual attention

A series of studies tested for distractor compatibility effects across wide target/distractor distances (0.6 degree to 20 degrees of visual angle). The effects of precue condition, constant/varied target location, horizontal/vertical distractor distance, and foveal/peripheral presentation were studied. Results show strong compatibility effects across wide distances when distractors are at peripheral retinal locations. When both stimuli were presented at the same peripheral location in opposite hemifields, compatibility effects were evident within an area of at least 2.5 degrees of visual angle. In contrast, when foveally placed distractors were used, compatibility effects were found primarily with target letters positioned near. The findings suggest that distance effects are not homogeneous across retinal location.     

Angry faces are tracked more easily than neutral faces during multiple identity tracking

We investigated whether and how emotional facial expressions affect sustained attention in face tracking. In a multiple-identity and object tracking paradigm, participants tracked multiple target faces that continuously moved around together with several distractor faces, and subsequently reported where each target face had moved to. The emotional expression (angry, happy, and neutral) of the target and distractor faces was manipulated. Tracking performance was better when the target faces were angry rather than neutral, whereas angry distractor faces did not affect tracking. The effect persisted when the angry faces were presented upside-down and when surface features of the faces were irrelevant to the ongoing task. There was only suggestive and weak evidence for a facilitatory effect of happy targets and a distraction effect of happy distractors in comparison to neutral faces. The results show that angry expressions on the target faces can facilitate sustained attention on the targets via increased vigilance, yet this effect likely depends on both emotional information and visual features of the angry faces.     

Integrating the irrelevant sound

A distractor can be integrated with a target response and the subsequent repetition of the distractor can facilitate or hamper responding depending on whether the same or a different response is required, a phenomenon labeled distractor-response binding. In two experiments we used a priming paradigm with an identification task to investigate influences of stimulus grouping on the binding of irrelevant stimuli (distractors) and responses in audition. In a grouped condition participants heard relevant and irrelevant sounds in one central location, whereas in a non-grouped condition the relevant sound was presented to one ear and the irrelevant sound was presented to the other ear. Distractor-based retrieval of the prime response was stronger for the grouped compared to the non-grouped presentation of stimuli indicating that binding of irrelevant auditory stimuli with responses is modulated by perceptual grouping.     

Dissociations of personally significant and task-relevant distractors inside and outside the focus of attention: a combined behavioral and psychophysiological study

Studies of attentional capture by personally significant stimuli have reached inconsistent results, possibly because of improper control of the participants' attention. In the present study, the authors controlled visual attention by using a Stroop-like task. Participants responded to a central color and ignored a word presented either centrally (i.e., at the focus of attention) or peripherally (i.e., outside the focus of attention). Central words led to slower reaction times and larger orienting responses for significant items than for neutral items. These effects largely disappeared when the words appeared in a peripheral location. The peripheral words interfered with performance when they were relevant to task demands. These results indicate that there is a fundamental difference between task-relevant words and personally significant words: The former capture attention even when presented peripherally, whereas the latter do not.     

The influence of relevant and irrelevant stereoscopic depth cues: Depth information does not always capture attention

Previous research reported ambiguous findings regarding the relationship of visuospatial attention and (stereoscopic) depth information. Some studies indicate that attention can be focused on a distinct depth plane, while other investigations revealed attentional capture from irrelevant items located in other, unattended depth planes. To evaluate whether task relevance of depth information modulates the deployment of attentional resources across depth planes, the additional singleton paradigm was adapted: Singletons defined by depth (i.e., displayed behind or in front of a central depth plane) or color (green against gray) were presented among neutral items and served as targets or (irrelevant) distractors. When participants were instructed to search for a color target, no attentional capture from irrelevant depth distractors was observed. In contrast, it took substantially longer to search for depth targets when an irrelevant distractor was presented simultaneously. Color distractors as well as depth distractors caused attentional capture, independent of the distractors’ relative depth position (i.e., in front of or behind the target). However, slight differences in task performance were obtained depending on whether or not participants fixated within the target depth plane. Thus, the current findings indicate that attentional resources in general are uniformly distributed across different depth planes. Although task relevant depth singletons clearly affect the attentional system, this information might be processed subsequent to other stimulus features.