Perceptual load modulates attentional capture by abrupt onsets

The abrupt appearance of a new object captures attention, even when the object is task irrelevant. These findings suggest that abrupt onsets capture attention in a stimulus-driven manner and are not susceptible to top-down influences on attentional control. However, previous studies examining the ability of abrupt onsets to capture attention have used search displays that lacked significant complexity. Because attention is a limited capacity mechanism, it is possible that increasing the complexity, or perceptual load, of the search arrays may modulate capture by abrupt onsets. We used a flanker task to examine the effect of perceptual load on attentional capture by abruptly appearing objects. Subjects searched for a target letter through low-load (set size=1) and high-load (set size=6) displays. On each trial, irrelevant flankers also appeared, one as an onset and the other as an offset. Onset flankers affected search in low-load but not high-load displays. This modulation of attentional capture was not caused by generalized slowing when subjects searched through high-load displays; search for a single perceptually degraded target slowed response times but did not affect attentional capture. These findings demonstrate that attentional capture by an abrupt onset is attenuated when people search through high-load scenes.     

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.     

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.     

注意控制定势和线索类型在注意捕获中的作用

采用前线索范式, 通过3个实验考察了注意控制定势和线索类型在注意捕获中的作用。实验1要求被试搜索颜色奇异项目标或突现目标, 涉及较弱的注意控制定势, 结果表明, 突现线索在作为匹配线索和不匹配线索时都能捕获注意, 而颜色奇异项线索只有在作为匹配线索时才能捕获注意。实验2要求被试搜索具体特征的红色或白色目标, 使被试建立较强的特征搜索定势, 结果表明, 颜色奇异项线索和突现线索在作为匹配线索时都能捕获注意, 但是在不匹配条件下, 颜色奇异项线索被抑制了, 而突现线索不能捕获注意; 实验3采取go/no-go范式, 要求被试对红色目标进行反应, 对白色目标进行抑制, 并通过设置不同的线索-目标时间间隔来进一步考察注意捕获的机制, 结果表明, 在600 ms间隔下, no-go突现线索被抑制, 而对于go颜色奇异项线索来说, 随着时间间隔的增加, 注意捕获效应减少。结果与相倚捕获假说和抑制独立捕获假说不符, 支持注意转移假说：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; 颜色奇异项线索和突现线索的注意捕获机制相同, 但是突现线索相对于颜色奇异项线索来说, 在与目标不匹配的条件下, 更容易捕获注意, 更难被抑制。     

Irrelevant singletons capture attention: evidence from inhibition of return

Previous research has shown that a salient feature singleton may capture attention in a stimulus-driven, bottom-up fashion (e.g., Theeuwes, 1992,1994b). This conclusion has been challenged by others claiming that the observed attentional capture by irrelevant singletons may not be stimulus driven but due to top-down attentional control settings and/or nonspatial filtering costs. In the present study, we show that inhibition of return (IOR) occurs at the location of an irrelevant singleton. Participants were slower to detect a target presented at the location of the irrelevant singleton, relative to other locations. Since IOR can be observed only as a result of an exogenous, stimulus-driven shift of spatial attention, it isun-likely that top-down control settings and/or nonspatial filtering costs played a role. In line with earlier claims, the present findings provide strong evidence that salient singletons capture spatial attention in a purely bottom-up way.     

Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: voluntary versus automatic allocation

The hypothesis that abrupt visual onsets capture attention automatically, as suggested by Yantis and Jonides (1984) was tested in four experiments. A centrally located cue directed attention to one of several stimulus positions in preparation for the identification of a target letter embedded in an array of distractor letters. In all experiments, one stimulus (either the target or one of the distractors) had an abrupt onset; the remaining letters did not. The effectiveness of the cue was manipulated (varying either its duration or its predictive validity) to test whether abrupt onsets capture attention even when subjects are in a highly focused attentional state. Results showed that onsets do not necessarily capture attention in violation of an observer's intentions. A mechanism for partially automatic attentional capture by abrupt onset is proposed, and the diagnosticity of the intentionality criterion for automaticity is discussed.     

The role of attentional set on attentional cueing and inhibition of return

When people know what critical feature will define a target for a block of trials, only cues that share a critical feature with targets will capture attention. This result is taken to mean that attentional control settings play a role in target identification. To examine the validity of the attentional control settings hypothesis while controlling for potential sensory artifacts, the first experiment compared conditions in which the critical target features were either blocked or randomized. The results indicated that all cues captured attention in the random conditions, but only cues that matched targets captured attention in the attentional set condition. The second experiment used the same two conditions to examine the effect of attentional set on inhibition of return (IOR). No differences were found between the blocked and random conditions, indicating that attentional set did not impact the IOR effects. Overall, the results indicate that (1) the previous findings of attentional set effects were not due to an artifact of the method, and (2) attentional set influences and early occurring attentional cueing effects but not later-occurring IOR effects.     

Contingent capture for onsets and offsets: attentional set for perceptual transients

Four experiments were conducted to examine whether attentional set affects the ability of visual transients (onsets and offsets) to capture attention. In the experiments, visual search for an identity-defined target was conducted. In the first 3 experiments, the target display either onset entirely or was revealed by offsetting camouflaging line segments to reveal letters. Prior to the target display, there was a noninformative cue, either an onset or an offset, at one of the potential target locations. Cues that shared the same transient feature as the target display captured attention. The lack of predictable target transients led to attentional capture by all forms of transients. The final experiments with luminance changes without offsets or onsets showed attentional capture when the luminance changes were large. The results suggest that attentional set can be broadly or narrowly tuned to detect changes in luminance.     

Oculomotor consequences of abrupt object onsets and offsets: onsets dominate oculomotor capture

Previous research has shown that the appearance of an object (onset) and the disappearance of an object (offset) have the ability to influence the allocation of covert attention. To determine whether both onsets and offsets have the ability to influence eye movements, a series of experiments was conducted in which participants had to make goal-directed eye movements to a color singleton target in the presence of an irrelevant onset/offset. In accord with previous research, onsets had the ability to capture the eyes. The offset of an object demonstrated little or no ability to interrupt goal-directed eye movements to the target. Two experiments in which the effects of onsets and offsets on covert attention were examined suggest that offsets do not capture the eyes, because they have a lesser ability to capture covert attention than do onsets. A number of other studies that have shown strong effects of offsets on attention have used offsets that were uncorrelated with target position (i.e., nonpredictive), whereas we used onsets and offsets that never served as targets (i.e., antipredictive). The present results are consistent with a new-object theory of attentional capture in which onsets receive attentional priority over other types of changes in the visual environment.     

Larger IOR effects following forget than following remember instructions depend on exogenous attentional withdrawal and target localization

When words are onset in the visual periphery, inhibition of return (IOR) for a subsequent target is larger when those words receive an intervening forget instruction than when they receive a remember instruction Taylor (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 613-629, 2005). The present study manipulated the allocation of endogenous and exogenous attention to assess the source of the forget > remember IOR difference. We determined that the forget > remember IOR difference likely arises from the differential withdrawal of exogenous-rather than endogenous-attention. Furthermore, this forget > remember IOR difference occurs only when a spatially compatible localization response is required; it does not occur when a simple detection response or a perceptual discrimination is required. This suggests that the forget > remember difference in the magnitude of IOR is not due to differences in perceptual/attentional processing. Instead, an instruction to remember or forget biases spatial responses in accordance with whether a location has previously contained relevant or irrelevant information. We suggest that directed forgetting in an item-method paradigm is not accomplished by changes in attention; rather, the changes in attention are coincident with changes in memory and may serve to bias later responses away from a source of unreliable information.     

An electrophysiological study of attention capture by salience: Does rarity enable capture?

Several behavioural studies have suggested that rarity is critical for enabling irrelevant, salient objects to capture attention. We tested this hypothesis using the N2pc thought to reflect attentional allocation. A cue display was followed by a target display in which participants identified the letter in a specific colour. Experiment 1 pitted rare, irrelevant abrupt onset cues (appearing on only 20% of trials) against target-relevant colour cues. The relevant colour cue produced large N2pc and cue validity effects even when competing with a rare, salient, simultaneous abrupt onset. Similar results occurred even when abrupt onset frequency was reduced to only 10% of trials (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 examined rare, irrelevant colour singleton cues (20% of trials). Despite being rare and salient, these singleton cues produced no N2pc or cue validity effect indicating little attentional capture. Experiment 4 greatly increased colour cue salience by adding four background boxes, increasing colour contrast and tripling the cue display duration (from 50 to 150 ms). Small cue validity and N2pc effects were obtained, but did not strongly depend on degree of rarity (20% vs. 100%). We argue that rarity by itself is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce attention capture.     

Contingent attentional capture by top-down control settings: converging evidence from event-related potentials

Theories of attentional control are divided over whether the capture of spatial attention depends primarily on stimulus salience or is contingent on attentional control settings induced by task demands. The authors addressed this issue using the N2-posterior- contralateral (N2pc) effect, a component of the event-related brain potential thought to reflect attentional allocation. They presented a cue display followed by a target display of 4 letters. Each display contained a green item and a red item. Some participants responded to the red letter and others to the green letter. Converging lines of evidence indicated that attention was captured by the cues with the same color as the target. First, these target-color cues produced a cuing validity effect on behavioral measures. Second, distractors appearing in the cued location produced larger compatibility effects. Third, the target-color cue produced a robust N2pc effect, similar in magnitude to the N2pc effect to the target itself. Furthermore, the target-color cue elicited a similar N2pc effect regardless of whether it competed with a simultaneous abrupt onset. The findings provide converging evidence for attentional capture contingent on top-down control settings.     

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 capture by motion onsets is modulated by perceptual load

The onset of motion captures attention during visual search even if the motion is not task relevant, which suggests that motion onsets capture attention in a stimulus-driven manner. However, we have recently shown that stimulus-driven attentional capture by abruptly appearing objects is attenuated under conditions of high perceptual load. In the present study, we examined the influence of perceptual load on attentional capture by another type of dynamic stimulus: the onset of motion. Participants searched for a target letter through briefly presented low- and high-load displays. On each trial, two irrelevant flankers also appeared, one with a motion onset and one that was static. Flankers defined by a motion onset captured attention in the low-load but not in the high-load displays. This modulation of capture in high-load displays was not the result of overall lengthening of reaction times (RTs) in this condition, since search for a single low-contrast target lengthened RTs but did not influence capture. These results, together with those of previous studies, suggest that perceptual load can modulate attentional capture by dynamic stimuli.     

The time course of attentional capture under dual-task conditions

Several recent studies have shown that attentional capture is not an automatic process. For example, abrupt peripheral onsets do not affect the processing of targets presented subsequently at that location when participants have to concurrently perform a perceptually demanding task elsewhere. This result leaves open the question of whether peripheral onsets lose their effectiveness in capturing attention or whether, instead, the performance of a perceptually demanding task entails a faster disengagement of attention from the cued location. Here, we measured exogenous spatial attentional-orienting effects either while participants performed a concurrent perceptually demanding central-monitoring task (a rapid serial visual presentation of letters for a to-be-detected digit target; Experiments 1 and 2) or in isolation (the baseline condition in Experiment 2). The results showed that peripheral onsets captured participants' attention at both the 80- and 190-ms stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) in the baseline condition. Crucially, however, during concurrent central monitoring, peripheral onsets were effective in capturing attention only at an 80-ms SOA, while the orienting effect disappeared as soon as a changing letter drew participants' attention back to the central stream (at an SOA of 190 ms). These findings demonstrate that task-irrelevant abrupt onsets cannot be entirely overridden by top-down attentional control, although attentional capture effects are dramatically reduced by an ongoing perceptually demanding task.     

Attentional capture under high perceptual load

Attentional capture by abrupt onsets can be modulated by several factors, including the complexity, or perceptual load, of a scene. We have recently demonstrated that observers are less likely to be captured by abruptly appearing, task-irrelevant stimuli when they perform a search that is high, as opposed to low, in perceptual load (Cosman & Vecera, 2009), consistent with perceptual load theory. However, recent results indicate that onset frequency can influence stimulus-driven capture, with infrequent onsets capturing attention more often than did frequent onsets. Importantly, in our previous task, an abrupt onset was present on every trial, and consequently, attentional capture might have been affected by both onset frequency and perceptual load. In the present experiment, we examined whether onset frequency influences attentional capture under conditions of high perceptual load. When onsets were presented frequently, we replicated our earlier results; attentional capture by onsets was modulated under conditions of high perceptual load. Importantly, however, when onsets were presented infrequently, we observed robust capture effects. These results conflict with a strong form of load theory and, instead, suggest that exposure to the elements of a task (e.g., abrupt onsets) combines with high perceptual load to modulate attentional capture by task-irrelevant information.     

Inhibition of return at multiple locations in visual search: When you see it and when you don't

Using a novel sequential task, Danziger, Kingstone, and Snyder (1998) provided conclusive evidence that inhibition of return (IOR) can co-occur at multiple non-contiguous locations. They argued that their findings depended crucially on the allocation of attention to cued locations. Specifically, they hypothesized that because subjects could not predict whether an onset event was a target or a non-target, all onset events had to be attended. As a result, non-targets were tagged with inhibition. The present study tested this hypothesis by manipulating whether target onset was predictable or not. In support of Danziger et al., three experiments revealed that multiple IOR was only observed when attention had to be directed to the cued locations. Interestingly, when attention did not need to be allocated to the cued locations, and multiple IOR was abolished, an IOR effect was still observed at the most recently cued location. Two possible accounts for this single IOR effect were presented for future investigation. One account attributes the effect to motor-based inhibition as hypothesized by Klein and Taylor (1994). The alternative account attributes the effect to weak attentional capture by a peripheral cue. Together the data support the view that multiple IOR is an attentional phenomenon and, as hypothesized by Tipper, Weaver, and Watson (1996), its presence or absence is largely under the control of the observer.     

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.     

Effects of relevant and irrelevant color singletons on inhibition of return and attentional capture

We tested whether color singletons lead to saccadic and manual inhibition of return (IOR; i.e., slower responses at cued locations) and whether IOR depended on the relevance of the color singletons. The target display was preceded by a nonpredictive cue display. In three experiments, half of the cues were response-relevant, because participants had to perform a discrimination task at the cued location. With the exception of Experiment 2, none of the cue colors matched the target color. We observed saccadic IOR after color singletons, which was greater for slow than for fast responses. Furthermore, when the relevant cue color matched the target color, we observed attentional capture (i.e., faster responses at cued locations) with rapid responses, but IOR with slower responses, which provides evidence for attentional deallocation. When the cue display was completely response-irrelevant in two additional experiments, we did not find evidence for IOR. Instead, we found attentional capture when the cue color matched the target color. Also, attentional capture was greater for rapid responses and with short cue–target intervals. Thus, IOR emerges when cues are relevant and do not match the target color, whereas attentional capture emerges with relevant and irrelevant cues that match the target color.     

Reduced habituation to angry faces: increased attentional capture as to override inhibition of return

The aim of this paper was to study whether real angry faces do capture attention to the extent of overcoming the inhibition of return (IOR) effect and whether the anxiety level of participants modulates this effect by stressing biases toward threatening stimuli. With this purpose, participants categorized the emotional valence of face targets in a standard spatial cueing procedure suitable to measure IOR. In Experiment 1, participants were selected according to their high vs. low-trait anxiety, whereas in Experiment 2 participants were induced a positive vs. anxiety mood state. The typical IOR effect was observed with neutral and happy face targets, which disappeared with angry face targets. Similar results were observed for all anxiety groups and in both experiments. The results indicate that IOR is overridden when the target is a biologically relevant angry face, as highly relevant targets should suffer less from habituation to attentional capture regardless of anxiety. We suggest that these data show that attentional capture is less likely to habituate for threatening information, so that no cost is measured in detecting new threatening information appearing at recently cued locations.