Spatial suppression due to statistical regularities is driven by distractor suppression not by target activation

Where and what we attend to is not only determined by what we are currently looking for but also by what we have encountered in the past. Recent studies suggest that biasing the probability by which distractors appear at locations in visual space may lead to attentional suppression of high-probability distractor locations, which effectively reduces capture by a distractor but also impairs target selection at this location. However, in many of these studies introducing a high-probability distractor location was equivalent to increasing the probability of the target appearing in any of the other locations (i.e., the low-probability distractor locations). Here, we investigate an alternative interpretation of previous findings according to which attentional selection at high-probability distractor locations is not suppressed but selection at low-probability distractor locations is facilitated. In two visual search tasks, we found no evidence for this hypothesis: there was no evidence for spatial suppression when only target probabilities were biased (Experiment 1), nor did the spatial suppression disappear when only the distractor probabilities were biased while the target probabilities were equal (Experiment 2). We conclude that recurrent presentation of a distractor in a specific location leads to attentional suppression of that location through a mechanism that is unaffected by any regularities regarding the target position.

[1]  M. Chun,et al.  Contextual cueing of visual attention , 2022 .

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

[3]  Tom Beesley,et al.  When goals conflict with values: counterproductive attentional and oculomotor capture by reward-related stimuli. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[4]  Marvin M. Chun,et al.  Contextual cueing: Reciprocal influences between attention and implicit learning. , 2003 .

[5]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 4.0: Current Progress With a Model of Visual Search , 2007, Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems.

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

[7]  M. Chun,et al.  Contextual Cueing: Implicit Learning and Memory of Visual Context Guides Spatial Attention , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention , 2017, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

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

[10]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Statistical regularities modulate attentional capture independent of search strategy , 2018, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[11]  L. Chelazzi,et al.  Learning to Attend and to Ignore Is a Matter of Gains and Losses , 2009, Psychological science.

[12]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Attentional capture by signals of threat , 2014, Cognition & emotion.

[13]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  More capture, more suppression: Distractor suppression due to statistical regularities is determined by the magnitude of attentional capture , 2019, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[14]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Goal-driven, stimulus-driven, and history-driven selection. , 2019, Current opinion in psychology.

[15]  Brett Bahle,et al.  Feature-Based Statistical Regularities of Distractors Modulate Attentional Capture , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Michel F. Failing,et al.  People look at the object they fear: oculomotor capture by stimuli that signal threat , 2017, Cognition & emotion.

[17]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005) , 2008 .

[18]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Target uncertainty does not lead to more distraction by singletons: Intertrial priming does , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  Anna Schubö,et al.  Context homogeneity facilitates both distractor inhibition and target enhancement. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[20]  Michael Zehetleitner,et al.  Probability cueing of distractor locations: both intertrial facilitation and statistical learning mediate interference reduction , 2014, Front. Psychol..

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

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

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

[24]  Heleen A Slagter,et al.  Inhibition in selective attention , 2020, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[25]  Robert Desimone,et al.  Parallel and Serial Neural Mechanisms for Visual Search in Macaque Area V4 , 2005, Science.

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

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

[28]  Patryk A. Laurent,et al.  Value-driven attentional capture , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[30]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Proactively location-based suppression elicited by statistical learning , 2020, PloS one.

[31]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications , 2017, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[32]  M. Shaw,et al.  Optimal allocation of cognitive resources to spatial locations. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[34]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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