Ironic capture: top-down expectations exacerbate distraction in visual search

Can enhancement and suppression concurrently guide attention? An assessment at the individual level

Background: Although people can pay attention to targets while ignoring distractors, previous research suggests that target enhancement and distractor suppression work separately and independently. Here, we sought to replicate previous findings and re-establish their independence. Methods: We employed an internet-based psychological experiment. We presented participants with a visual search task in which they searched for a specified shape with or without a singleton. We replicated the singleton-presence benefit in search performance, but this effect was limited to cases where the target color was fixed across all trials. In a randomly intermixed probe task (30% of all trials), the participants searched for a letter among colored probes; we used this task to assess how far attention was separately allocated toward the target or distractor dimensions. Results: We found a negative correlation between target enhancement and distractor suppression, indicating that the participants who paid closer attention to target features ignored distractor features less effectively and vice versa. Averaged data showed no benefit from target color or cost from distractor color, possibly because of the substantial differences in strategy across participants. Conclusions: These results suggest that target enhancement and distractor suppression guide attention in mutually dependent ways and that the relative contribution of these components depends on the participants’ search strategy.

No sound is more distracting than the one you're trying not to hear: delayed costs of mental control of task-irrelevant neutral and emotional sounds

Background

Suppressing intrusive thoughts can result in a post-suppression rebound effect where the same thoughts become hyperaccessible. The current study aimed to investigate if similar so-called rebound effects could be observed when people attempted to mentally suppress awareness of nonsensical auditory stimuli. Based on previous research on thought suppression and mental control in other domains, we hypothesized that attempting to suppress awareness of a task-irrelevant sound while under cognitive load would impact evaluations of the sound on affective dimensions and loudness, and result in increased general vigilance, as evidenced by faster responding on subsequent tasks.

Methods

We performed two experiments where participants in a suppression condition were initially instructed to mentally suppress awareness of a sound while performing a mentally challenging task. Participants in a control condition performed the same task without receiving any instructions regarding the sound. In Experiment 1, the sound was affectively neutral, while in Experiment 2 participants were presented with an inherently aversive (tinnitus-like) sound. After this initial phase, participants performed tasks measuring vigilance and attention, and were also asked to give subjective ratings of the sounds on a number of affective dimensions and loudness.

Results

In Experiment 1, participants in the suppression condition showed faster response times on both a visual search task and an auditory spatial cueing task, as compared to participants in the control condition. Contrary to our predictions, participants in the suppression condition did not rate the distractor sound as louder than participants in the control condition, and there were no differences on affective dimensions. In Experiment 2, results revealed that participants in the suppression condition made more errors on a visual search task, specifically on trials where the previously suppressed sound was presented. In contrast to results from Experiment 1, participants in the suppression condition also rated the targeted sound as louder.

Conclusions

The findings provide preliminary support for a post-suppression rebound effect in the auditory domain and further suggest that this effect may be moderated by the emotional properties of the auditory stimulus.

Inhibition continues to guide search under concurrent visual working memory load

It is well known that attention can be automatically attracted to salient items. However, recent studies show that it is possible to avoid distraction by a salient item (with a known feature), leading to facilitated search. This article tests a proposed mechanism for distractor inhibition: that a mental representation of the distractor feature held in visual working memory (VWM) allows attention to be guided away from the distractor. We tested this explanation by examining color-based inhibition in visual search for a shape target with and without VWM load. In Experiment 1 the presence of a distractor facilitated visual search under low and high VWM loads, as reflected in faster response times when the distractor was present (compared to absent), and in fewer eye movements to the salient distractor than the non-target items. However, the eye movement inhibition effect was noticeably weakened in the load conditions. Experiment 2 explored further, to distinguish between inhibition of the distractor color and activation of the (irrelevant) target color. Intermittently presenting single-color search trials that contained only either a target, distractor or a neutral-colored singleton revealed that the distractor color attracted attention less than the neutral color with and without VWM load. The target color, however, only attracted attention more than neutral colors under no load, whereas a VWM load completely eliminated this effect. This suggests that although VWM plays a role in guiding attention to the (irrelevant) target color, distractor-feature inhibition can operate independently.

Directed avoidance and its effect on visual working memory

Attentional control processes help to prioritize the storage of information in visual working memory (VWM) by gating what enters the system and influencing how precisely this information is stored. However, the extent to which such prioritization occurs deliberately, opposed to incidentally, is poorly understood. In large part, this is because investigations of this matter have almost exclusively relied on comparisons of memory for exogenously cued items versus uncued items. To understand whether prioritization occurs independent of intention, though, it is essential to examine instances in which attended items are entirely task-irrelevant. Thus, in the current study we used a directed avoidance paradigm to examine VWM performance following the selection of an item known to be task-irrelevant. In Experiment 1, we confirmed that cueing the color of a non-target item paradoxically increases attention to the cued item when the target color is unknown, resulting in longer search times (in line with previous findings). In Experiments 2 and 3, we applied the same cueing procedure to a delayed-estimation task of VWM, but now found a non-target cueing benefit in which the recall of task-relevant items was improved by directed avoidance. We further found that this effect is not solely due to the reprioritization of cognitive resources during maintenance (Exp. 4), but involves additional control processes that 1) reallocate resources to relevant items at encoding, and 2) selectively stabilize such items during the transition from encoding to maintenance (Exp. 5). As such, we suggest that while attentionally selected items may initially be prioritized independent of importance, more controlled mechanisms reallocate resources on the basis of relevance when sufficient time is provided before the sensory information is removed or displaced.

What not to look for: Electrophysiological evidence that searchers prefer positive templates

To-be-attended information can be specified either with positive cues (I'll be wearing a blue shirt) or with negative cues (I won't be wearing a red shirt). Numerous experiments have found that positive cues help search more than negative cues. Given that negative cues produce smaller benefits compared to positive cues, it stands to reason that searchers may choose to use positive templates instead of negative templates if given the opportunity. Here, we evaluate this possibility with behavioral measures as well as by directly measuring the formation of positive and negative templates with event-related potentials. Analysis of the contralateral delay activity (CDA) elicited by cues revealed that positive and negative templates relied on working memory to the same extent, even when negative working memory templates could have been circumvented by relying on long-term memories of target colors. Whereas the CDA did not discriminate positive and negative templates, a CNV-like potential did, suggesting cognitive differences between positive and negative templates beyond visual working memory. However, when both positive and negative information were presented in each cue, participants preferred to make use of the positive cues, as indicated by a CDA contralateral to the positive color in negative cue blocks, and a lack of search benefits for positive- and negative-color cues relative to positive-color cues alone. Our results show that searchers elect to selectively encode only positive information into visual working memory when both positive and negative information are available.

Distract yourself: prediction of salient distractors by own actions and external cues

Distracting sensory events can capture attention, interfering with the performance of the task at hand. We asked: is our attention captured by such events if we cause them ourselves? To examine this, we employed a visual search task with an additional salient singleton distractor, where the distractor was predictable either by the participant’s own (motor) action or by an endogenous cue; accordingly, the task was designed to isolate the influence of motor and non-motor predictive processes. We found both types of prediction, cue- and action-based, to attenuate the interference of the distractor—which is at odds with the “attentional white bear” hypothesis, which states that prediction of distracting stimuli mandatorily directs attention towards them. Further, there was no difference between the two types of prediction. We suggest this pattern of results may be better explained by theories postulating general predictive mechanisms, such as the framework of predictive processing, as compared to accounts proposing a special role of action–effect prediction, such as theories based on optimal motor control. However, rather than permitting a definitive decision between competing theories, our study highlights a number of open questions, to be answered by these theories, with regard to how exogenous attention is influenced by predictions deriving from the environment versus our own actions.