Evidence for Second-Order Singleton Suppression Based on Probabilistic Expectations

Decades of research in attention have shown that salient distractors (e.g., a color singleton) tend to capture attention. However, in most studies, singleton distractors are just as likely to be present as absent. We therefore have little knowledge of how probabilistic expectations of the salient distractor’s occurrence and features affect suppression. In three experiments, we explored this question by manipulating the frequency of a singleton distractor and the variability of its color within a search display. We found that increased expectations regarding the occurrence of the singleton distractor eliminated the singleton response time cost and reduced the number of first saccades to the singleton. In contrast, expectations regarding variability in the singleton color did not affect singleton capture. This was surprising and suggests the ability to suppress second-order salience over and above that of first-order features. We next inserted the probe display that included a to-be-reported letter inside each shape between search trials to measure if attention went to multiple objects. The letter in the singleton location was reported less often in the high-frequency condition, suggesting proactive suppression of expected singleton. Additionally, we found that trial-to-trial repetitions of a singleton (irrespective of its color and location) facilitated performance (i.e., singleton repetition priming), but repetitions of its specific color or location did not. Together our findings demonstrate that attentional capture by a color singleton distractor is attenuated by probabilistic expectations of its occurrence, but not of its color and location.

[1]  Yuhong V. Jiang,et al.  Rapid acquisition but slow extinction of an attentional bias in space , 2012 .

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

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

[4]  Bo-Yeong Won,et al.  Learned Suppression for Multiple Distractors in Visual Search , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  R. Remington,et al.  Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: evidence for two forms of attentional capture. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[7]  Ali Mazaheri,et al.  Pre-Stimulus Activity Predicts the Winner of Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Attentional Selection , 2011, PloS one.

[8]  Lee M. Miller,et al.  The Role of Alpha Activity in Spatial and Feature-Based Attention , 2016, eNeuro.

[9]  H. Müller,et al.  Attentional capture by salient color singleton distractors is modulated by top-down dimensional set. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[11]  G. Horstmann Attentional capture by an unannounced color singleton depends on expectation discrepancy. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  Daniel B. Vatterott,et al.  Experience-dependent attentional tuning of distractor rejection , 2012, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[13]  T. Braver The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  H. Egeth,et al.  Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  John H. R. Maunsell,et al.  Feature-based attention in visual cortex , 2006, Trends in Neurosciences.

[16]  Carly J. Leonard,et al.  Direct Evidence for Active Suppression of Salient-but-Irrelevant Sensory Inputs , 2015, Psychological science.

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

[18]  Jason T. Arita,et al.  Templates for rejection: configuring attention to ignore task-irrelevant features. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Veit Stuphorn,et al.  Trial-by-trial adjustments of top-down set modulate oculomotor capture , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[20]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  Susan L. Franzel,et al.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  H. J. Muller,et al.  Visual search for singleton feature targets across dimensions: Stimulus- and expectancy-driven effects in dimensional weighting. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  John T Serences,et al.  Searching for an Oddball: Neural Correlates of Singleton Detection Mode in Parietal Cortex , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[24]  S. Treue,et al.  Feature-Based Attention Increases the Selectivity of Population Responses in Primate Visual Cortex , 2004, Current Biology.

[25]  Carly J. Leonard,et al.  The role of magnocellular signals in oculomotor attentional capture. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[26]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[27]  J. Duncan,et al.  Competitive brain activity in visual attention , 1997, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[28]  Stefanie I. Becker,et al.  Irrelevant singletons in pop-out search: attentional capture or filtering costs? , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  Leonardo Chelazzi,et al.  Orchestrating Proactive and Reactive Mechanisms for Filtering Distracting Information: Brain-Behavior Relationships Revealed by a Mixed-Design fMRI Study , 2016, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[30]  Charles L. Folk,et al.  Bottom-up priming of top-down attentional control settings , 2008 .

[31]  Michel F. Failing,et al.  Don’t let it distract you: how information about the availability of reward affects attentional selection , 2017, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[32]  S. Yantis,et al.  Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: evidence from visual search. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  Joy J. Geng,et al.  Attentional Mechanisms of Distractor Suppression , 2014 .

[34]  Howard E Egeth,et al.  Taming the White Bear , 2016, Psychological science.

[35]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[36]  J. Theeuwes Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[38]  N. Lavie,et al.  The Role of Perceptual Load in Processing Distractor Faces , 2003, Psychological science.

[39]  Dominique Lamy,et al.  Attentional capture in singleton-detection and feature-search modes. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Priming of popout: II. Role of position , 1996 .

[41]  Howard E Egeth,et al.  The ignoring paradox: Cueing distractor features leads first to selection, then to inhibition of to-be-ignored items , 2012, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[42]  Steven J. Luck,et al.  Suppression of overt attentional capture by salient-but-irrelevant color singletons , 2016, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[43]  Nicholas Gaspelin,et al.  Distinguishing Among Potential Mechanisms of Singleton Suppression , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[44]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  On the time course of top-down and bottom-up control of visual attention , 2000 .

[45]  J. Theeuwes Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[46]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[47]  Andrew B. Leber,et al.  Made you blink! Contingent attentional capture produces a spatial blink , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[48]  Jacqueline Gottlieb,et al.  Integration of Exogenous Input into a Dynamic Salience Map Revealed by Perturbing Attention , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[50]  D. E. Irwin,et al.  Our Eyes do Not Always Go Where we Want Them to Go: Capture of the Eyes by New Objects , 1998 .

[51]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Evidence for a dissociation between the control of oculomotor capture and disengagement , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[52]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[53]  Joseph Krummenacher,et al.  Expectancies modulate attentional capture by salient color singletons , 2008, Vision Research.

[54]  G. Campana,et al.  Where perception meets memory: A review of repetition priming in visual search tasks , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[55]  Daniel B. Vatterott,et al.  Rejecting salient distractors: Generalization from experience , 2017, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[56]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Exogenous visual orienting by reward. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[57]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Feature-based attention: it is all bottom-up priming , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[58]  M. Chun,et al.  The dark side of visual attention , 2002, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[59]  J. Theeuwes Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[60]  N. Lavie Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[61]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[62]  J. Theeuwes Perceptual selectivity for color and form , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[63]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Priming of pop-out: II. The role of position , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[64]  Nicholas E. DiQuattro,et al.  Presaccadic target competition attenuates distraction , 2017, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[65]  Gernot Horstmann,et al.  Evidence for Attentional Capture by a Surprising Color Singleton in Visual Search , 2002, Psychological science.

[66]  D. Simons,et al.  Moving and looming stimuli capture attention , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[67]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[68]  H. Egeth,et al.  Attention on autopilot: Past experience and attentional set , 2006 .

[69]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Of bits and wows: A Bayesian theory of surprise with applications to attention , 2010, Neural Networks.

[70]  S. Yantis,et al.  Visual attention: control, representation, and time course. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.