No evidence for proactive suppression of explicitly cued distractor features

Distinct mechanisms of attentional suppression: exploration of trait factors underlying cued- and learned-suppression

Attention allows us to focus on relevant information while ignoring distractions. Effective suppression of distracting information is crucial for efficient visual search. Recent studies have developed two paradigms to investigate attentional suppression: cued-suppression which is based on top-down control, and learned-suppression which is based on selection history. While both types of suppression reportedly engage proactive control, it remains unclear whether they rely on shared mechanisms. This study aimed to determine the relationship between cued- and learned-suppression. In a within-subjects design, 54 participants performed a cued-suppression task where pre-cues indicated upcoming target or distractor colors, and a learned-suppression task where a salient color distractor was present or absent. No significant correlation emerged between performance in the two tasks, suggesting distinct suppression mechanisms. Cued-suppression correlated with visual working memory capacity, indicating reliance on explicit control. In contrast, learned-suppression correlated with everyday distractibility, suggesting implicit control based on regularities. These results provide evidence for heterogeneous proactive control mechanisms underlying cued- and learned-suppression. While both engage inhibition, cued-suppression relies on deliberate top-down control modulated by working memory, whereas learned-suppression involves implicit suppression shaped by selection history and distractibility traits.

Suppression on the basis of template for rejection is reactive: Evidence from human electrophysiology

According to most theories of attention, the selection of task-relevant visual information can be enhanced by holding them in visual working memory (VWM). However, there has been a long-standing debate concerning whether similar optimization can also be achieved for task-irrelevant information, known as a "template for rejection". The present study aimed to explore this issue by examining the consequence of cue distractors before visual search tasks. For this endeavor, we manipulated the display heterogeneity by using two distractor conditions, salient and non-salient, to explore the extent to which holding the distractor color in VWM might affect attentional selection. We measured the reaction times of participants while their EEG activity was recorded. The results showed that WM-matched distractors did not improve reaction times but rather slowed them down in both tasks. Event-related potential (ERP) results showed that the display heterogeneity had no modulatory effect on the degree of distractor suppression. Even in the salient distractor condition, the WM-matched distractor received no greater suppression. Furthermore, the WM-matched distractor but not the neutral distractor elicited an N2pc before the PD in salient distractor conditions. This suggests that the template for rejection operates reactively since suppression occurs after extra attentional processes to the distractor. Moreover, the presence of WM-matched distractors led to a reduction of P3b, indicating a competition between target processing and WM-matched distractor rejection. Our findings provide insights into the mechanisms underlying the optimization of attentional selection, and have implications for future studies aimed at understanding the role of VWM in cognition.

Evidence that proactive distractor suppression does not require attentional resources

Does the suppression of irrelevant visual features require attentional resources? McDonald et al. (2023, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30, 224-234) proposed that suppression processes are unavailable while a person is busy performing another task. They reported the absence of the PD (believed to index suppression) when two tasks were presented close together in time. We looked for converging evidence using established behavior measures of suppression. Following McDonald et al., our participants performed a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task followed by a search task. For the RSVP task, participants determined whether the target digit 4 or 6 appeared within a string of other digits. The search display appeared at a lag of 2 or 8 digits after the RSVP target. Participants searched for a yellow target circle amongst nine background circles, which included a uniquely colored distractor for some trials. The main question was whether distractor suppression would occur at Lag 2, while attentional resources were still processing the RSVP target. Suppression was assessed using the capture-probe paradigm. On 30% of trials, probe letters appeared inside the colored circles and participants reported those letters. Probe recall accuracy was lower at locations with distractor colors than those with neutral colors (the baseline), suggesting proactive suppression. Critically, this difference in probe recall accuracy was similar at Lag 2 and Lag 8, suggesting that the ability to proactively suppress distractors remains intact while dual-tasking. We argue that although reactive suppression likely requires attentional resources, proactive suppression-an implicit process-does not.

Sequential encoding aids working memory for meaningful objects' identities but not for their colors

Previous studies have found that real-world objects' identities are better remembered than simple features like colored circles, and this effect is particularly pronounced when these stimuli are encoded one by one in a serial, item-based way. Recent work has also demonstrated that memory for simple features like color is improved if these colors are part of real-world objects, suggesting that meaningful objects can serve as a robust memory scaffold for their associated low-level features. However, it is unclear whether the improved color memory that arises from the colors appearing on real-world objects is affected by encoding format, in particular whether items are encoded sequentially or simultaneously. We test this using randomly colored silhouettes of recognizable versus unrecognizable scrambled objects that offer a uniquely controlled set of stimuli to test color working memory of meaningful versus non-meaningful objects. Participants were presented with four stimuli (silhouettes of objects or scrambled shapes) simultaneously or sequentially. After a short delay, they reported either which colors or which shapes they saw in a two-alternative forced-choice task. We replicated previous findings that meaningful stimuli boost working memory performance for colors (Exp. 1). We found that when participants remembered the colors (Exp. 2) there was no difference in performance across the two encoding formats. However, when participants remembered the shapes and thus identity of the objects (Exp. 3), sequential presentation resulted in better performance than simultaneous presentation. Overall, these results show that different encoding formats can flexibly impact visual working memory depending on what the memory-relevant feature is.

Contextual and Temporal Constraints for Attentional Capture: Commentary on Theeuwes' 2023 Review "The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and when Not?"

Salient distractors demand our attention. Their salience, derived from intensity, relative contrast or learned relevance, captures our limited information capacity. This is typically an adaptive response as salient stimuli may require an immediate change in behaviour. However, sometimes apparent salient distractors do not capture attention. Theeuwes, in his recent commentary, has proposed certain boundary conditions of the visual scene that result in one of two search modes, serial or parallel, that determine whether we can avoid salient distractors or not. Here, we argue that a more complete theory should consider the temporal and contextual factors that influence the very salience of the distractor itself.

Negative and positive templates: Two forms of cued attentional control

Our ability to control our attention to focus on goal-relevant information is critical for functioning in daily life. In addition to the typical attentional control driven by target enhancement described in most theories of attention, recent research has focused on our ability to use information about distractions maintained in working memory to direct our attention away from known distractors. Using these negative templates can improve the efficiency of attention, much in the same way as enhancing information matching search targets. However, these effects only occur for specific tasks or in specific circumstances. In this review, I will focus on our emerging understanding of the relationship between distractor ignoring from negative templates and target enhancement from positive templates. I will also highlight key remaining questions for further study.

Learned low priority of attention after training to suppress color singleton distractor

Allocating attention to significant events, such as a salient object, is effortless. Our brain is effective on this type of processing because doing so is generally beneficial for survival. However, a salient object could also be distracting and ignoring it costs a large amount of cognitive resource. In the present study, we conducted two behavioral experiments to investigate the effect of learned suppression of a salient color. Particularly, we were interested in the effect of learning in a new task context in which the previously suppressed color was task irrelevant. In Experiment 1, we trained the participants for five days with explicit instruction to suppress a color singleton distractor in a visual search task. We measured the effect of training with a dot probe task before and after the training. Colors in the dot probe task only served as the background and were not associated with the position of the target dot. However, we found that attention was involuntarily biased away from the previously suppressed color. In Experiment 2, the color singleton could either be the target or distractor in the visual search task, making the suppression of the color singleton inefficient for task performance. The results showed no training effect in the dot probe task after this manipulation. These findings provided direct evidence for the learned low priority of attention after training to suppress the color singleton distractor.

Ten simple rules to study distractor suppression

Distractor suppression refers to the ability to filter out distracting and task-irrelevant information. Distractor suppression is essential for survival and considered a key aspect of selective attention. Despite the recent and rapidly evolving literature on distractor suppression, we still know little about how the brain suppresses distracting information. What limits progress is that we lack mutually agreed upon principles of how to study the neural basis of distractor suppression and its manifestation in behavior. Here, we offer ten simple rules that we believe are fundamental when investigating distractor suppression. We provide guidelines on how to design conclusive experiments on distractor suppression (Rules 1-3), discuss different types of distractor suppression that need to be distinguished (Rules 4-6), and provide an overview of models of distractor suppression and considerations of how to evaluate distractor suppression statistically (Rules 7-10). Together, these rules provide a concise and comprehensive synopsis of promising advances in the field of distractor suppression. Following these rules will propel research on distractor suppression in important ways, not only by highlighting prominent issues to both new and more advanced researchers in the field, but also by facilitating communication between sub-disciplines.

Ten simple rules to study distractor suppression

Distractor suppression refers to the ability to filter out distracting and task-irrelevant information. Distractor suppression is essential for survival and considered a key aspect of selective attention. Despite the recent and rapidly evolving literature on distractor suppression, we still know little about how the brain suppresses distracting information. What limits progress is that we lack mutually agreed upon principles of how to study the neural basis of distractor suppression and its manifestation in behavior. Here, we offer ten simple rules that we believe are fundamental when investigating distractor suppression. We provide guidelines on how to design conclusive experiments on distractor suppression (Rules 1–3), discuss different types of distractor suppression that need to be distinguished (Rules 4–6), and provide an overview of models of distractor suppression and considerations of how to evaluate distractor suppression statistically (Rules 7–10). Together, these rules provide a concise and comprehensive synopsis of promising advances in the field of distractor suppression. Following these rules will propel research on distractor suppression in important ways, not only by highlighting prominent issues to both new and more advanced researchers in the field, but also by facilitating communication between sub-disciplines.

•

Distractor suppression is the ability to filter out irrelevant information.

•

At present, we know little about how the brain suppresses distraction.

•

We offer ten rules that are fundamental when investigating distractor suppression.

•

Following the rules will propel research and foster interaction between disciplines.