Automatic Attention Capture by Threatening, But Not by Semantically Incongruent Natural Scene Images.

Visual objects are typically perceived as parts of an entire visual scene, and the scene's context provides information crucial in the object recognition process. Fundamental insights into the mechanisms of context-object integration have come from research on semantically incongruent objects, which are defined as objects with a very low probability of occurring in a given context. However, the role of attention in processing of the context-object mismatch remains unclear, with some studies providing evidence in favor, but other against an automatic capture of attention by incongruent objects. Therefore, in the present study, 25 subjects completed a dot-probe task, in which pairs of scenes-congruent and incongruent or neutral and threatening-were presented as task-irrelevant distractors. Importantly, threatening scenes are known to robustly capture attention and thus were included in the present study to provide a context for interpretation of results regarding incongruent scenes. Using N2 posterior-contralateral ERP component as a primary measure, we revealed that threatening images indeed capture attention automatically and rapidly, but semantically incongruent scenes do not benefit from an automatic attentional selection. Thus, our results suggest that identification of the context-object mismatch is not preattentive.

[1]  Guillaume A. Rousselet,et al.  Early interference of context congruence on object processing in rapid visual categorization of natural scenes. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[2]  Michael A. Cohen,et al.  What is the Bandwidth of Perceptual Experience? , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  E. Halgren,et al.  Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  J. Henderson,et al.  Semantic Informativeness Mediates the Detection of Changes in Natural Scenes , 2000 .

[5]  P. Vuilleumier,et al.  How brains beware: neural mechanisms of emotional attention , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  J. Henderson,et al.  High-level scene perception. , 1999, Annual review of psychology.

[7]  H Stanislaw,et al.  Calculation of signal detection theory measures , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[8]  L. Deouell,et al.  Scene congruency biases Binocular Rivalry , 2011, Consciousness and Cognition.

[9]  K. Fujii,et al.  Visualization for the analysis of fluid motion , 2005, J. Vis..

[10]  Bruno Verschuere,et al.  Time-course of attention for threatening pictures in high and low trait anxiety. , 2005, Behaviour research and therapy.

[11]  C. MacLeod,et al.  Attentional bias in emotional disorders. , 1986, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[12]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Building the gist of a scene: the role of global image features in recognition. , 2006, Progress in brain research.

[13]  Ralph Adolphs,et al.  Processing of the Arousal of Subliminal and Supraliminal Emotional Stimuli by the Human Amygdala , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  Paul E. Downing,et al.  Viewpoint-Specific Scene Representations in Human Parahippocampal Cortex , 2003, Neuron.

[15]  M. Fabre-Thorpe,et al.  Age effects on the neural processing of object-context associations in briefly flashed natural scenes , 2019, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  J. Dubois,et al.  Imaging object-scene relations processing in visible and invisible natural scenes , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[17]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Five factors that guide attention in visual search , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[18]  P. Lang International affective picture system (IAPS) : affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual , 2005 .

[19]  Denis Fize,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[20]  R. D. Gordon Attentional allocation during the perception of scenes. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  S. Kastner,et al.  Attention in the real world: toward understanding its neural basis , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  Steven J. Luck,et al.  Behavioral and ERP measures of attentional bias to threat in the dot-probe task: poor reliability and lack of correlation with anxiety , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[23]  Nicholas Gaspelin,et al.  Inhibition as a potential resolution to the attentional capture debate. , 2019, Current opinion in psychology.

[24]  Tim H. W. Cornelissen,et al.  Stuck on semantics: Processing of irrelevant object-scene inconsistencies modulates ongoing gaze behavior , 2017, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[25]  B. Milliken,et al.  A cow on the prairie vs. a cow on the street: long-term consequences of semantic conflict on episodic encoding , 2016, Psychological Research.

[26]  Robin L. Hill,et al.  Eye movements : a window on mind and brain , 2007 .

[27]  P. Montoya,et al.  Low spatial frequency filtering modulates early brain processing of affective complex pictures , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[28]  Hans-Jochen Heinze,et al.  Speed limits 2 Running head : SPEED LIMITS IN NATURAL SCENE DISCRIMINATION Speed Limits : Orientation and Semantic Context Interactions Constrain Natural Scene Discrimination Dynamics , 2007 .

[29]  A. Nowicka,et al.  Self-face Captures, Holds, and Biases Attention , 2018, Front. Psychol..

[30]  S. Schmukle Unreliability of the dot probe task , 2005 .

[31]  N. Mackworth,et al.  Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  M. Fabre-Thorpe,et al.  Incongruent object/context relationships in visual scenes: Where are they processed in the brain? , 2014, Brain and Cognition.

[33]  Michèle Fabre-Thorpe,et al.  The Characteristics and Limits of Rapid Visual Categorization , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[34]  A. Mizuno,et al.  A change of the leading player in flow Visualization technique , 2006, J. Vis..

[35]  M. Kutas,et al.  An electrophysiological study of scene effects on object identification. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[36]  Marius V. Peelen,et al.  Interaction between Scene and Object Processing Revealed by Human fMRI and MEG Decoding , 2017, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[37]  L. Mudrik,et al.  Evidence for Implicit—But Not Unconscious—Processing of Object-Scene Relations , 2018, Psychological science.

[38]  M. Eimer The N2pc component as an indicator of attentional selectivity. , 1996, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[39]  M. Võ,et al.  Reading scenes: how scene grammar guides attention and aids perception in real-world environments. , 2019, Current opinion in psychology.

[40]  P. de Graef,et al.  Perceptual effects of scene context on object identification , 1990, Psychological research.

[41]  L. Deouell,et al.  ERP evidence for context congruity effects during simultaneous object–scene processing , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[42]  G. Underwood,et al.  Congruency, saliency and gist in the inspection of objects in natural scenes , 2007 .

[43]  Martin Eimer,et al.  The N2pc component and its links to attention shifts and spatially selective visual processing. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[44]  Katie L. H. Gray,et al.  Are visual threats prioritized without awareness? A critical review and meta-analysis involving 3 behavioral paradigms and 2696 observers. , 2016, Psychological bulletin.

[45]  J. Lupiáñez,et al.  Semantic incongruity attracts attention at a pre-conscious level: Evidence from a TMS study , 2017, Cortex.

[46]  T. Foulsham,et al.  Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: in press Visual saliency and semantic incongruency influence eye movements when , 2022 .

[47]  J. Henderson,et al.  Object–scene inconsistencies do not capture gaze: evidence from the flash-preview moving-window paradigm , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[48]  I. Biederman,et al.  Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[49]  T. Foulsham,et al.  Is attention necessary for object identification? Evidence from eye movements during the inspection of real-world scenes , 2008, Consciousness and Cognition.

[50]  P. Sessa,et al.  Interhemispheric ERP asymmetries over inferior parietal cortex reveal differential visual working memory maintenance for fearful versus neutral facial identities. , 2011, Psychophysiology.

[51]  Greg H. Proudfit,et al.  Electrocortical evidence for rapid allocation of attention to threat in the dot-probe task. , 2015, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[52]  L. Deouell,et al.  Synchronous contextual irregularities affect early scene processing: Replication and extension , 2014, Neuropsychologia.

[53]  Dejan Draschkow,et al.  The lower bounds of massive memory: Investigating memory for object details after incidental encoding , 2018, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[54]  A. Nowicka,et al.  Unconscious Detection of One’s Own Image , 2019, Psychological science.

[55]  Benoit Brisson,et al.  Dissociation of the N2pc and sustained posterior contralateral negativity in a choice response task , 2008, Brain Research.

[56]  J. Henderson,et al.  Does gravity matter? Effects of semantic and syntactic inconsistencies on the allocation of attention during scene perception. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[57]  Liad Mudrik,et al.  Are incongruent objects harder to identify? The functional significance of the N300 component , 2018, Neuropsychologia.

[58]  S. Langton,et al.  Attentional bias to angry faces using the dot-probe task? It depends when you look for it. , 2006, Behaviour research and therapy.

[59]  Radoslaw Martin Cichy,et al.  Object Vision in a Structured World , 2019, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[60]  Angus F. Chapman,et al.  Dissociating the physiological components of unconscious emotional responses , 2017, Neuroscience of consciousness.

[61]  J. Findlay,et al.  Absence of scene context effects in object detection and eye gaze capture , 2007 .

[62]  Martin Eimer,et al.  An electrophysiological measure of access to representations in visual working memory. , 2010, Psychophysiology.

[63]  A. Mack,et al.  Scene incongruity and attention , 2017, Consciousness and Cognition.

[64]  K. Rayner,et al.  Eye movements when looking at unusual/weird scenes: are there cultural differences? , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[65]  Tim Lauer,et al.  The role of scene summary statistics in object recognition , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[66]  Guillaume A. Rousselet,et al.  Processing scene context: Fast categorization and object interference , 2007, Vision Research.

[67]  R. D. Gordon,et al.  Attention to smoking-related and incongruous objects during scene viewing. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[68]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Differential Electrophysiological Signatures of Semantic and Syntactic Scene Processing , 2013, Psychological science.

[69]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP , 2017, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[70]  M. Bar Visual objects in context , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[71]  Mark W. Becker,et al.  Object-intrinsic oddities draw early saccades. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[72]  Roy Luria,et al.  Visual Short-term Memory Capacity for Simple and Complex Objects , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[73]  Dominique Lamy,et al.  Dissociating between the N2pc and attentional shifting: An attentional blink study , 2018, Neuropsychologia.

[74]  A. Torralba,et al.  The role of context in object recognition , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[75]  M. Pomplun,et al.  Guidance of visual attention by semantic information in real-world scenes , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[76]  B. Milliken,et al.  Context congruency effects in change detection: Opposing effects on detection and identification , 2013 .

[77]  K. Rayner,et al.  The effect of background information on object identification , 2017 .

[78]  Michelle R. Greene,et al.  Visual search in scenes involves selective and nonselective pathways , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[79]  Jodi L. Davenport,et al.  Scene Consistency in Object and Background Perception , 2004, Psychological science.

[80]  B. Milliken,et al.  Conflicting Effects of Context in Change Detection and Visual Search: A Dual Process Account , 2017, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[81]  Y. Bar-Haim,et al.  Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.