Templates for rejection: configuring attention to ignore task-irrelevant features.

Theories of attention are compatible with the idea that we can bias attention to avoid selecting objects that have known nontarget features. Although this may underlie several existing phenomena, the explicit guidance of attention away from known nontargets has yet to be demonstrated. Here we show that observers can use feature cues (i.e., color) to bias attention away from nontarget items during visual search. These negative cues were used to quickly instantiate a template for rejection that reliably facilitated search across the cue-to-search stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), although negative cues were not as potent as cues that guide attention toward target features. Furthermore, by varying the search set size we show a template for rejection is increasingly effective in facilitating search as scene complexity increases. Our findings demonstrate that knowing what not to look for can be used to configure attention to avoid certain features, complimenting what is known about setting attention to select certain target features.

[1]  A. Buchner,et al.  Negative Priming as a Memory Phenomenon , 2007 .

[2]  Y. Tsal,et al.  The attentional white bear phenomenon: the mandatory allocation of attention to expected distractor locations. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Marvin M Chun,et al.  Visual marking: dissociating effects of new and old set size. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  Naomi M. Kenner,et al.  How fast can you change your mind? The speed of top-down guidance in visual search , 2004, Vision Research.

[5]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Visual marking: prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. , 1997, Psychological review.

[6]  C. Bundesen A theory of visual attention. , 1990, Psychological review.

[7]  ● Pytorch,et al.  Attention! , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[8]  S. Tipper,et al.  Behavioural Goals Determine Inhibitory Mechanisms of Selective Attention , 1994 .

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

[10]  Gordon D Logan,et al.  An instance theory of attention and memory. , 2002, Psychological review.

[11]  Geoffrey R. Loftus,et al.  Essence of statistics, 2nd ed. , 1988 .

[12]  Yuhong Jiang,et al.  Setting up the target template in visual search. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[13]  G. Woodman,et al.  Storage of features, conjunctions and objects in visual working memory. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  J. Wolfe,et al.  What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[15]  William L. Hays,et al.  Essence of Statistics. , 1982 .

[16]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Visual marking inhibits singleton capture , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  S. Tipper Does Negative Priming Reflect Inhibitory Mechanisms? A Review and Integration of Conflicting Views , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[20]  C. Bundesen,et al.  A neural theory of visual attention: bridging cognition and neurophysiology. , 2005, Psychological review.

[21]  A. Treisman Features and Objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture , 1988, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[22]  D. Spalding The Principles of Psychology , 1873, Nature.

[23]  G. Woodman,et al.  Do the contents of visual working memory automatically influence attentional selection during visual search? , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.