Learning What Is Irrelevant or Relevant: Expectations Facilitate Distractor Inhibition and Target Facilitation through Distinct Neural Mechanisms

It is well known that attention can facilitate performance by top-down biasing processing of task-relevant information in advance. Recent findings from behavioral studies suggest that distractor inhibition is not under similar direct control, but strongly dependent on expectations derived from previous experience. Yet, how expectations about distracting information influence distractor inhibition at the neural level remains unclear. The current study addressed this outstanding question in three experiments in which search displays with repeating distractor or target locations across trials allowed observers to learn which location to selectively suppress or boost. Behavioral findings demonstrated that both distractor and target location learning resulted in more efficient search, as indexed by faster response times. Crucially, benefits of distractor learning were observed without target location foreknowledge, unaffected by the number of possible target locations, and could not be explained by priming alone. To determine how distractor location expectations facilitated performance, we applied a spatial encoding model to EEG data to reconstruct activity in neural populations tuned to the distractor or target location. Target location learning increased neural tuning to the target location in advance, indicative of preparatory biasing. This sensitivity increased after target presentation. By contrast, distractor expectations did not change preparatory spatial tuning. Instead, distractor expectations reduced distractor-specific processing, as reflected in the disappearance of the Pd ERP component, a neural marker of distractor inhibition, and decreased decoding accuracy. These findings suggest that the brain may no longer process expected distractors as distractors, once it has learned they can safely be ignored. Significance statement We constantly try hard to ignore conspicuous events that distract us from our current goals. Surprisingly, and in contrast to dominant attention theories, ignoring distracting, but irrelevant events does not seem to be as flexible as is focusing our attention on those same aspects. Instead, distractor suppression appears to strongly rely on learned, context-dependent expectations. Here, we investigated how learning about upcoming distractors changes distractor processing and directly contrasted the underlying neural dynamics to target learning. We show that while target learning enhanced anticipatory sensory tuning, distractor learning only modulated reactive suppressive processing. These results suggest that expected distractors may no longer be considered distractors by the brain once it has learned that they can safely be ignored.

[1]  Simon van Gaal,et al.  No Evidence that Predictions and Attention Modulate the First Feedforward Sweep of Cortical Information Processing , 2018, bioRxiv.

[2]  R. Oostenveld,et al.  Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[3]  S. Luck,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search. , 1994, Psychophysiology.

[4]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Jackknife-based method for measuring LRP onset latency differences. , 1998, Psychophysiology.

[5]  C. Olivers,et al.  Posterior α EEG Dynamics Dissociate Current from Future Goals in Working Memory-Guided Visual Search , 2017, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  Leonardo Chelazzi,et al.  Altering spatial priority maps via statistical learning of target selection and distractor filtering , 2017, Cortex.

[7]  Steven J. Luck,et al.  Electrophysiological Correlates of the Focusing of Attention within Complex Visual Scenes: N2pc and Related ERP Components , 2011 .

[8]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[9]  Ben M. Crittenden,et al.  Distinct Mechanisms for Distractor Suppression and Target Facilitation , 2016, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[10]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Statistical regularities induce spatial as well as feature-specific suppression. , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. , 1999 .

[12]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Multiple object individuation and subitizing in enumeration: a view from electrophysiology , 2015, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[13]  Mark G. Stokes,et al.  Selective inhibition of distracting input , 2017, Behavioural Brain Research.

[14]  Martin Eimer,et al.  Multivariate EEG analyses support high-resolution tracking of feature-based attentional selection , 2016, bioRxiv.

[15]  F. Perrin,et al.  Spherical splines for scalp potential and current density mapping. , 1989, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[16]  M. Stokes ‘Activity-silent’ working memory in prefrontal cortex: a dynamic coding framework , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  Karl J. Friston The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain? , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: visual working memory content affects visual attention. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Edward Awh,et al.  The role of alpha oscillations in spatial attention: limited evidence for a suppression account. , 2019, Current opinion in psychology.

[20]  John M. Gaspar,et al.  Suppression of Salient Objects Prevents Distraction in Visual Search , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  Hassana K. Oyibo,et al.  Experience-dependent spatial expectations in mouse visual cortex , 2016, Nature Neuroscience.

[22]  Jonathan Westley Peirce,et al.  Neuroinformatics Original Research Article Generating Stimuli for Neuroscience Using Psychopy , 2022 .

[23]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Bayesian inference and attentional modulation in the visual cortex , 2005, Neuroreport.

[24]  Martin Luessi,et al.  MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data , 2014, NeuroImage.

[25]  Gustavo Rohenkohl,et al.  Testing sensory evidence against mnemonic templates , 2015, eLife.

[26]  Steven J. Luck,et al.  Combined Electrophysiological and Behavioral Evidence for the Suppression of Salient Distractors , 2018, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[27]  Bradley R. Postle,et al.  Decoding and Reconstructing the Focus of Spatial Attention from the Topography of Alpha-band Oscillations , 2016, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[28]  Chapter 2 Posterior alpha EEG dynamics dissociate current from future goals in working memory guided visual search , 2022 .

[29]  Vincent Di Lollo,et al.  Electrophysiological Indices of Target and Distractor Processing in Visual Search , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[30]  Nuttida Rungratsameetaweemana,et al.  Expectations Do Not Alter Early Sensory Processing during Perceptual Decision-Making , 2018, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[31]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  How to inhibit a distractor location? Statistical learning versus active, top-down suppression , 2018, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[32]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Statistical Regularities Modulate Attentional Capture , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  O. Jensen,et al.  Shaping Functional Architecture by Oscillatory Alpha Activity: Gating by Inhibition , 2010, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[34]  Peter Praamstra,et al.  Prior information of stimulus location: Effects on ERP measures of visual selection and response selection , 2006, Brain Research.

[35]  Floris P de Lange,et al.  Prior expectations induce prestimulus sensory templates , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  Steven A. Hillyard,et al.  Effects of spatial cuing on luminance detectability: Psychophysical and electrophysiological evidence for early selection. , 1994 .

[37]  H.A. Slagter,et al.  Facilitation and inhibition in attention: Functional dissociation of pre-stimulus alpha activity, P1, and N1 components , 2016, NeuroImage.

[38]  G. Mangun,et al.  Signal enhancement and suppression during visual–spatial selective attention , 2010, Brain Research.

[39]  Steven J. Luck,et al.  The Role of Inhibition in Avoiding Distraction by Salient Stimuli , 2018, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[40]  Marius V Peelen,et al.  Preparatory attention in visual cortex , 2017, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Yuhong V. Jiang,et al.  Habitual versus goal-driven attention , 2017, Cortex.

[42]  M. Behrmann,et al.  Spatial probability as an attentional cue in visual search , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[43]  Edward Awh,et al.  Alpha-Band Oscillations Enable Spatially and Temporally Resolved Tracking of Covert Spatial Attention , 2017, Psychological science.

[44]  Marlene Behrmann,et al.  Probability Cuing of Target Location Facilitates Visual Search Implicitly in Normal Participants and Patients with Hemispatial Neglect , 2002, Psychological science.

[45]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data , 2010, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[46]  Edward Awh,et al.  Spatially Selective Alpha Oscillations Reveal Moment-by-Moment Trade-offs between Working Memory and Attention , 2018, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[47]  M. Eimer The neural basis of attentional control in visual search , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[48]  John J. Foxe,et al.  The Role of Alpha-Band Brain Oscillations as a Sensory Suppression Mechanism during Selective Attention , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[49]  Yvonne Höller,et al.  Functional similarities between the P1 component and alpha oscillations , 2008, The European journal of neuroscience.

[50]  Marcus Nyström,et al.  An adaptive algorithm for fixation, saccade, and glissade detection in eyetracking data , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[51]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences , 2011, Behavior Research Methods.