The trickle-down effect of predictability: Secondary task performance benefits from predictability in the primary task

Predictions optimize processing by reducing attentional resources allocation to expected or predictable sensory data. Our study demonstrates that these saved processing resources can be then used on concurrent stimuli, and in consequence improve their processing and encoding. We illustrate this “trickle-down” effect with a dual task, where the primary task varied in terms of predictability. The primary task involved detection of a pre-specified symbol that appeared at some point of a short video of a dot moving along a random, semi-predictable or predictable trajectory. The concurrent secondary task involved memorization of photographs representing either emotionally neutral or non-neutral (social or threatening) content. Performance in the secondary task was measured by a memory test. We found that participants allocated more attention to unpredictable (random and semi-predictable) stimuli than to predictable stimuli. Additionally, when the stimuli in the primary task were more predictable, participants performed better in the secondary task, as evidenced by higher sensitivity in the memory test. Finally, social or threatening stimuli were allocated more “looking time” and a larger number of saccades than neutral stimuli. This effect was stronger for the threatening stimuli than social stimuli. Thus, predictability of environmental input is used in optimizing the allocation of attentional resources, which trickles-down and benefits the processing of concurrent stimuli.

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

[2]  C. Büchel,et al.  Rethinking Explicit Expectations: Connecting Placebos, Social Cognition, and Contextual Perception , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Edward Awh,et al.  Statistical learning induces discrete shifts in the allocation of working memory resources. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  C. Koch,et al.  Computational modelling of visual attention , 2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[5]  Timothy F. Brady,et al.  Compression in visual working memory: using statistical regularities to form more efficient memory representations. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[7]  J. Hyönä,et al.  Eye movement assessment of selective attentional capture by emotional pictures. , 2006, Emotion.

[8]  M. Hautus Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values ofd′ , 1995 .

[9]  C. Heywood,et al.  Visual salience in the change detection paradigm: the special role of object onset. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  L. Cosmides,et al.  Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[12]  Nicholas B. Turk-Browne,et al.  Memory-guided attention: control from multiple memory systems , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  Sian L. Beilock,et al.  Haste does not always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  Lea Fleischer,et al.  The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems , 2016 .

[15]  C. Summerfield,et al.  Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  J. Duncan The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli. , 1980, Psychological review.

[17]  J. Henderson,et al.  Initial scene representations facilitate eye movement guidance in visual search. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Stephen D. Smith,et al.  The naked truth: Positive, arousing distractors impair rapid target perception , 2007 .

[19]  Geert Crombez,et al.  Attentional bias to threat: a perceptual accuracy approach. , 2008, Emotion.

[20]  B. Dosher,et al.  The role of attention in the programming of saccades , 1995, Vision Research.

[21]  P. Lennie The Cost of Cortical Computation , 2003, Current Biology.

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

[23]  J. Braun Vision and attention: the role of training , 1998, Nature.

[24]  Janneke F. M. Jehee,et al.  Attention Reverses the Effect of Prediction in Silencing Sensory Signals , 2011, Cerebral cortex.

[25]  Sian L. Beilock,et al.  Expertise, attention, and memory in sensorimotor skill execution: Impact of novel task constraints on dual-task performance and episodic memory , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[27]  P. Subramanian Active Vision: The Psychology of Looking and Seeing , 2006 .

[28]  Iain D Gilchrist,et al.  Goal-driven modulation of oculomotor capture , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  Jay Pratt,et al.  It’s Alive! , 2010, Psychological science.

[30]  John K. Tsotsos Limited Capacity of Any Realizable Perceptual System Is a Sufficient Reason for Attentive Behavior , 1997, Consciousness and Cognition.

[31]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

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

[33]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Bayesian surprise attracts human attention , 2005, Vision Research.

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

[35]  John K. Tsotsos Analyzing vision at the complexity level , 1990, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[36]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Faces capture attention: Evidence from inhibition of return , 2006 .

[37]  H. Deubel,et al.  Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism , 1996, Vision Research.

[38]  Gregory J. Zelinsky,et al.  Scene context guides eye movements during visual search , 2006, Vision Research.

[39]  P. Downing,et al.  Bodies capture attention when nothing is expected , 2004, Cognition.

[40]  C. Summerfield,et al.  Expectation in perceptual decision making: neural and computational mechanisms , 2014, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[41]  N. Turk-Browne,et al.  Attention Is Spontaneously Biased Toward Regularities , 2013, Psychological science.

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

[43]  Kimron Shapiro,et al.  Direct measurement of attentional dwell time in human vision , 1994, Nature.

[44]  Maria J. Donaldson,et al.  Detection of object onsets and offsets: Does the primacy of onset persist even with bias for detecting offset? , 2016, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[45]  W. Johnston,et al.  Attention capture by novel stimuli. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[46]  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 .

[47]  Magdalena Król,et al.  The role of stimulus predictability in the allocation of attentional resources: an eye-tracking study , 2017, Cognitive Processing.

[48]  B. Egloff,et al.  Assessing attention allocation toward threat-related stimuli: a comparison of the emotional Stroop task and the attentional probe task , 2003 .