Actions modulate attentional capture

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the action system plays a role in determining which stimulus characteristics capture attention by assessing the interference effects caused by dynamic discontinuities that have similar attention-capturing properties, but different action affordances. Results revealed that offset distractors caused significant interference when onset targets were presented in a keypress task, but did not increase reaction times when the same onset targets were presented in a goal-directed aiming task In contrast, onset distractors caused interference when offset targets were presented in both keypress and aiming tasks. This pattern of results suggests that the attentional set, and thus the properties of stimuli that capture attention, is modulated by the interaction between stimulus and response expectations.     

Attention capture by contour onsets and offsets: No special role for onsets

In five experiments, we investigated the power of targets defined by the onset or offset of one of an object’s parts (contour onsets and offsets) either to guide or to capture visual attention. In Experiment 1, search for a single contour onset target was compared with search for a single contour offset target against a static background of distractors; no difference was found between the efficiency with which each could be detected. In Experiment 2, onsets and offsets were compared for automatic attention capture, when both occurred simultaneously. Unlike in previous studies, the effects of overall luminance change, new-object creation, and number of onset and offset items were controlled. It was found that contour onset and offset items captured attention equally well. However, display size effects on both target types were also apparent. Such effects may have been due to competition for selection between multiple onset and offset stimuli. In Experiments 3 and 4, single onset and offset stimuli were presented simultaneously and pitted directly against one another among a background of static distractors. In Experiment 3, we examined “guided search,” for a target that was formed either from an onset or from an offset among static items. In Experiment 4, the onsets and offsets were uncorrelated with the target location. Similar results occurred in both experiments: target onsets and offsets were detected more efficiently than static stimuli which needed serial search; there remained effects of display size on performance; but there was still no advantage for onsets. In Experiment 5, we examined automatic attention capture by single onset and offset stimuli presented individually among static distractors. Again, there was no advantage for onset over offset targets and a display size effect was also present. These results suggest that, both in isolation and in competition, onsets that do not form new objects neither guide nor gain automatic attention more efficiently than offsets. In addition, in contrast to previous studies in which onsets formed new objects, contour onsets and offsets did not reliably capture attention automatically.     

The control of attention by abrupt visual onsets and offsets

A letter can be presented visually either by the abrupt appearance of lines that make up the letter (onset transient) or by the abrupt disappearance of extra lines from a form in which the letter is embedded (offset transient). Recent evidence from visual-search tasks has suggested that onset transients have absolute priority over offset transients with respect to the allocation of visual attention. Specifically, these studies have found that a single onset-transient target letter pops out of a background of offset-transient distractor letters (i.e., time to detect the target is independent of the number of distractors), which indicates that attention is automatically directed to the location of an onset-transient stimulus even when there are competing offset transients (Yantis & Jonides, 1984). Because of the way the offset letters were created, however, the total display change (number of offset line-segments plus number of onset line-segments) was greater for onset than for offset letters. Thus, onset targets might have popped out because they produced greater overall display changes rather than because they were the only letters with onset transients. In the present study, a figure that included more offset-transient line segments in the offset-transient letters was used. Under these conditions, onset-transient targets did not pop out of a background of offset-transient distractors. It is suggested that visual attention may be influenced by total display change and, therefore, that onset transients are not necessarily sufficient to control attention when there are many competing offset transients.     

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.     

The effects of onsets and offsets on visual attention

 Two experiments are presented which examine the effect of onset and offset cues on early occurring attentional cueing effects and later occurring inhibition of return (IOR). The first experiment compared the effects of single onset cues, single offset cues, and simultaneous onset and offset cues (at opposite locations) at a 100-ms stimulus-onset-asynchrony (SOA) and IOR at a 900-ms SOA. Whereas the first experiment examined these conditions with choice localization keypress responses, the second experiment used simple detection keypress responses. Both experiments found that onset and offset cues presented in isolation produce early facilitation and late IOR. When onset and offset cues were simultaneously presented, facilitation but not IOR was found with localization responses, while neither facilitation or IOR was found with detection responses. Overall, these findings suggest that offset cues can be treated in the same manner as onset cues by the attentional system, although the onset cues may have priority in orienting attention when targets must be localized in space. Received: 26 May 2000 / Accepted: 31 January 2001     

The role of cognitive control mechanisms in selective attention towards emotional stimuli

The role of cognitive control mechanisms in reducing interference from emotionally salient distractors was investigated. In two experiments, participants performed a flanker task in which target-distractor affective compatibility and cognitive load were manipulated. Differently from past studies, targets and distractors were presented at separate spatial locations and cognitive load was not domain-specific. In Experiment 1, words (positive vs. negative) and faces (angry, happy or neutral faces), were used respectively as targets and distractors, whereas in Experiment 2, both targets (happy vs. angry) and distractors were faces. Findings showed interference from distractor processing only when cognitive load was high. The present findings indicate that, when targets and distractors are presented at different spatial locations, cognitive control mechanisms are involved in preventing interference from positive (Exp. 1) or negative distractors (Exp. 2). The role of stimulus valence and type is also discussed with regard to different patterns of interference observed.     

Goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in cross-dimensional texture segregation

Goal-directed and stimulus-driven control of attention was examined in a visual texture segregation task. Recent published reports have debated the existence and efficiency of goal-directed guidance of attention. Some of this research has focused on the apparent stimulus-driven attentional priority given to salient distractors, even when they are known to be irrelevant to the task. In the present study, subjects searched a texture array for targets defined along one dimension. These displays also included distractors created by variation in an irrelevant dimension. Targets were of three different overall shapes. On each trial, distractors could be the same shape as the target or one of the other two shapes. In two experiments subjects were informed of the overall shape of the target prior to stimulus presentation. In these experiments, distractors that did not match the overall shape of the target caused less interference than distractors that matched the target’s shape. In the third experiment, subjects were not informed of the overall shape of the target. In this experiment all distractors caused roughly equal interference. The results of these experiments demonstrate that if subjects are given information about the overall shape of the target, they are able to use this information to reduce interference from distractors that do not match the overall target shape. While acknowledging some stimulus-driven interference, this illustrates a previously unexplored source of goal-directed guidance that can reduce interfering effects of even salient distractors and argues against purely stimulus-driven control of attention.     

An effective attentional set for a specific colour does not prevent capture by infrequently presented motion distractors

An organism's survival depends on the ability to rapidly orient attention to unanticipated events in the world. Yet, the conditions needed to elicit such involuntary capture remain in doubt. Especially puzzling are spatial cueing experiments, which have consistently shown that involuntary shifts of attention to highly salient distractors are not determined by stimulus properties, but instead are contingent on attentional control settings induced by task demands. Do we always need to be set for an event to be captured by it, or is there a class of events that draw attention involuntarily even when unconnected to task goals? Recent results suggest that a task-irrelevant event will capture attention on first presentation, suggesting that salient stimuli that violate contextual expectations might automatically capture attention. Here, we investigated the role of contextual expectation by examining whether an irrelevant motion cue that was presented only rarely (～3–6% of trials) would capture attention when observers had an active set for a specific target colour. The motion cue had no effect when presented frequently, but when rare produced a pattern of interference consistent with attentional capture. The critical dependence on the frequency with which the irrelevant motion singleton was presented is consistent with early theories of involuntary orienting to novel stimuli. We suggest that attention will be captured by salient stimuli that violate expectations, whereas top-down goals appear to modulate capture by stimuli that broadly conform to contextual expectations.     

Better late than never: how onsets and offsets influence prior entry and exit

The three experiments presented in the paper examine visual prior entry (determining which of two stimuli appeared first) and prior exit (determining which of two stimuli disappeared first) effects with a temporal order judgment (TOJ) task. In addition to using onset and offset targets, the preceding cues also consisted of either onset or offset stimuli. Typical, and equivalent, prior entry effects were found when either onset or offset cues preceded the onset targets. Unexpectedly large prior exit effects where found with the offset targets, with offset cues producing greater capture effects than onset cues. These findings are consistent with the notion that more attention is allocated to searching the visual field when targets are more difficult to find. In addition, the results indicate that attentional control settings may be more likely to occur with more difficult searches. In addition, these findings demonstrate that TOJ tasks provide extremely precise measures of the allocation of attention and are very sensitive to a range of task manipulations.     

An action sequence held in memory can interfere with response selection of a target stimulus,but does not interfere with response activation of noise stimuli

Withholding an action plan in memory for later execution can delay execution of another action if the actions share a similar (compatible) action feature (e.g., response hand). We investigated whether this phenomenon, termed compatibility interference (CI), occurs for responses associated with a target as well as responses associated with distractors in a visual selection task. Participants planned and withheld a sequence of keypress responses (with their right or left hand), according to the identity of a stimulus (A), and then immediately executed a keypress response (with their right or left hand) to a second stimulus (B), according to the identity of a target letter appearing alone or among distractor letters. Distractor letters were either response compatible or incompatible with the target and appeared either simultaneously with the target (Experiments 1A and 2) or 100 msec before the target (Experiment 1B). Also, stimulus-response mapping was either 1:1 (Experiment 1) or 2:1 (Experiment 2). Results showed that the response to the Stimulus B target was delayed when it required the same response hand as Stimulus A, as opposed to a different hand. Also, the target reaction time for Stimulus B was greater when the target was flanked by incompatible distractors than when it was flanked by compatible distractors. Moreover, the degree of CI was consistent across the compatible-, incompatible-, and no-distractor conditions, indicating that CI generalizes to responses associated with a target, but not to those associated with distractors. Thus, CI occurs at a response selection, not at a response activation stage. Implications for the code occupation account for CI (e.g., Stoet & Hommel, 1999, 2002) and an alternative account for CI are discussed.     

The influence of synchronous audiovisual distractors on audiovisual temporal order judgments

Participants made unspeeded temporal order judgments (TOJs) regarding which occurred first, anauditory or a visual target stimulus, when they were presented at a variety of different stimulus onset asynchronies. The target stimuli were presented either in isolation or positioned randomly among a stream of three synchronous audiovisual distractors. The largest just noticeable differences were reported when the targets were presented in the middle of the distractor stream. When the targets were presented at the beginning of the stream, performance was no worse than when the audiovisual targets were presented in isolation. Subsequent experiments revealed that performance improved somewhat when the position of the target was fixed or when the target was made physically distinctive from the distractors. These results show that audiovisual TOJs are impaired by the presence of audiovisual distractors and that this cost can be ameliorated by directing attention to the appropriate temporal position within the stimulus stream.     

Localized attentional interference affects object individuation, not feature detection

Modern theorists conceptualize visual selective attention as a competition between object representations for the control of extrastriate receptive fields, an account supported by the finding that attentional selection of one stimulus can degrade processing of nearby stimuli. In the present study the conditions that produce reciprocal interference between attended stimuli are examined. Each display contained either no, one, or two feature-defined target items among an array of homogeneous distractors. Observers performed two tasks, feature detection and object individuation. The feature-detection task required observers to determine if any targets were present within the display. The object-individuation task required observers to determine if the number of targets was exactly two. Spatially mediated interference between target pairs occurred in the object-individuation task, but had no effect on feature detection. Results suggest that localized interference between attended stimuli occurs only when observers are required to resolve the features of individual objects, consistent with the competitive interaction models of attention.     

Selective target processing: perceptual load or distractor salience?

Perceptual load theory (Lavie, 1995) states that participants cannot engage in focused attention when shown displays containing a low perceptual load, because attentional resources are not exhausted, whereas in high-load displays attention is always focused, because attentional resources are exhausted. An alternative "salience" hypothesis holds that the salience of distractors and not perceptual load per se determines selective attention. Three experiments were conducted to investigate the influence that target and distractor onsets and offsets have on selective processing in a standard interference task. Perceptual load theory predicts that, regardless of target or distractor presentation (onset or offset), interference from ignored distractors should occur in low-load displays only. In contrast, the salience hypothesis predicts that interference should occur when the distractor appears as an onset and would occur for distractor offsets only when the target was also an offset. Interference may even occur in highload displays if the distractor is more salient. The results supported the salience hypothesis.     

Suppression history of distractor location biases attentional and oculomotor control

Past selection experience greatly affects the deployment of attention such that targets are more readily selected if their features or locations were more frequently selected in the past. Crucially, recent studies have shown similar experience-dependent effects also for salient task irrelevant stimuli: distractors exerted less interference if they appeared at a location where they were presented more often, relatively to other possible locations. Here we investigated the effects of such suppression history on the immediate behavioural correlates of attentional deployment, i.e., eye movements. Participants were to make saccadic eye movements to a target stimulus, while ignoring a highly distracting irrelevant visual onset appearing abruptly on the screen in a proportion of trials. Crucially, this irrelevant onset occurred more frequently in two locations on the visual display and our results showed that, relatively to distractors elsewhere, onsets presented at these locations became easier to ignore, giving rise to reduced oculomotor capture. Consistent with the notion that experience can alter attentional deployment towards spatial locations, these findings indicate that, through learning, the priority of high frequency locations becomes suppressed, attenuating the intrinsic saliency of distractors appearing therein. Traces left by individual events of attentional suppression decrease the processing priority of coordinates within topographic maps of the visual space.     

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.     

Attentional capture with various distractor and target types

Effects of nonpredictive distractors that involved changes in luminance, size, or shape were examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1, with two types of distractors (onsets and offsets), accuracy was better on trials when the distractor was near the location of either an offset or an onset target than on trials when the distractor was in a different location from that of the target, demonstrating attentional capture. Capture occurred both when the type of target (onset or offset) was blocked and therefore predictable and also when the type of target was mixed within blocks and therefore not predictable. Further experiments indicated that distractors captured attention even when the change to distractor did not create a new perceptual object. Neither a singleton-detection mode, nor a contingent involuntary orienting hypothesis, nor creation of a new object seems to explain all of these data adequately. Rather, capture may depend on a number of factors in the task.     

The relationship between attentional capture and deviations in movement trajectories in a selective reaching task

According to action-centered models of attention, attention and action systems are tightly linked such that the capture of attention by an object automatically initiates response-producing processes. In support of this link, studies have shown that movements deviate towards or away from non-target stimuli. These deviations are thought to emerge because attentional capture by non-target stimuli generates responses that summate with target responses to develop a combined movement vector. The present study tested attention–action coupling by examining movement trajectories in the presence of non-target stimuli that do or do not capture attention. Previous research has revealed that non-target cue stimuli only capture attention when they share critical features with the target. Cues that do not share this feature do not capture attention. Following these studies and their findings, participants in the present study aimed to the location of a single white square (onset singleton target) or a single red square presented with two white squares (color singleton target). In separate blocks, targets were preceded by non-predictive cues that did or did not share the target feature (color or onset singleton cues). The critical finding of the present study was that trajectory effects mirrored the temporal interference effects in that deviations were only observed when cue and target properties matched. Deviations were not observed when the cue and target properties did not match. These data provide clear support for the link between attentional capture and the activation of response-producing processes.     

Attentional capture with various distractor and target types

Effects of nonpredictive distractors that involved changes in luminance, size, or shape were examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1, with two types of distractors (onsets and offsets), accuracy was better on trials when the distractor was near the location of either an offset or an onset target than on trials when the distractor was in a different location from that of the target, demonstrating attentional capture. Capture occurred both when the type of target (onset or offset) was blocked and therefore predictable and also when the type of target was mixed within blocks and therefore not predictable. Further experiments indicated that distractors captured attention even when the change to distractor did not create a new perceptual object. Neither a singleton-detection mode, nor a contingent involuntary orienting hypothesis, nor creation of a new object seems to explain all of these data adequately. Rather, capture may depend on a number of factors in the task.     

The cognitive locus of distraction by acoustic novelty in the cross-modal oddball task

Unexpected stimuli are often able to distract us away from a task at hand. The present study seeks to explore some of the mechanisms underpinning this phenomenon. Studies of involuntary attention capture using the oddball task have repeatedly shown that infrequent auditory changes in a series of otherwise repeating sounds trigger an automatic response to the novel or deviant stimulus. This attention capture has been shown to disrupt participants' behavioral performance in a primary task, even when distractors and targets are asynchronous and presented in distinct sensory modalities. This distraction effect is generally considered as a by-product of the capture of attention by the novel or deviant stimulus, but the exact cognitive locus of this effect and the interplay between attention capture and target processing has remained relatively ignored. The present study reports three behavioral experiments using a cross-modal oddball task to examine whether the distraction triggered by auditory novelty affects the processing of the target stimuli. Our results showed that variations in the demands placed on the visual analysis (Experiment 1) or categorical processing of the target (Experiment 2) did not impact on distraction. Instead, the cancellation of distraction by the presentation of an irrelevant visual stimulus presented immediately before the visual target (Experiment 3) suggested that distraction originated in the shifts of attention occurring between attention capture and the onset of the target processing. Possible accounts of these shifts are discussed.     

The spider does not always win the fight for attention: Disengagement from threat is modulated by goal set

Stimulus-driven preferential attention to threat can be modulated by goal-driven attention. However, it remains unclear how this goal-driven modulation affects specific attentional components implied in threat interference. We hypothesise that goal-driven modulation most strongly impacts delayed disengagement from threat. A spatial cueing task was used that disentangles delayed disengagement from attentional capture by tightly manipulating the locus of attention at the time of target onset. Different top-down goals were induced by instructing participants to identify bird/fish targets (Experiment 1) or spider/cat targets (Experiment 2) among animal non-targets. Delayed disengagement from a non-target spider was observed only when the spider was part of the target set, not when it was task-irrelevant. This corroborates evidence that threat stimuli do not necessarily override goal-driven attentional control and that extended processing of threatening distractors is not obligatory.