How to inhibit a distractor location? Statistical learning versus active, top-down suppression

Recently, Wang and Theeuwes (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(1), 13–17, 2018a) demonstrated the role of lingering selection biases in an additional singleton search task in which the distractor singleton appeared much more often in one location than in all other locations. For this location, there was less capture and selection efficiency was reduced. It was argued that statistical learning induces plasticity within the spatial priority map such that particular locations that are high likely to contain a distractor are suppressed relative to all other locations. The current study replicated these findings regarding statistical learning (Experiment 1) and investigated whether similar effects can be obtained by cueing the distractor location in a top-down way on a trial-by-trial basis. The results show that top-down cueing of the distractor location with long (1,500 ms; Experiment 2) and short stimulus-onset symmetries (SOAs) (600 ms; Experiment 3) does not result in suppression: The amount of capture nor the efficiency of selection was affected by the cue. If anything, we found an attentional benefit (instead of the suppression) for the short SOA. We argue that through statistical learning, weights within the attentional priority map are changed such that one location containing a salient distractor is suppressed relative to all other locations. Our cueing experiments show that this effect cannot be accomplished by active, top-down suppression. Consequences for recent theories of distractor suppression are discussed.

[1]  Vincent Di Lollo,et al.  Electrophysiological Indices of Target and Distractor Processing in Visual Search , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  Dirk Kerzel,et al.  The distractor positivity (Pd) signals lowering of attentional priority: evidence from event-related potentials and individual differences. , 2014, Psychophysiology.

[3]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Cueing the location of a distractor: an inhibitory mechanism of spatial attention? , 2008, Acta psychologica.

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

[5]  S. Yantis,et al.  Preparatory activity in visual cortex indexes distractor suppression during covert spatial orienting. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[6]  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.

[7]  N. Clark,et al.  Direct Evidence , 1934 .

[8]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  An ERP study of preparatory and inhibitory mechanisms in a cued saccade task , 2006, Brain Research.

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

[10]  Yuhong V. Jiang,et al.  Habitual versus goal-driven attention , 2017, Cortex.

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

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

[13]  M. Chun,et al.  Top-Down Attentional Guidance Based on Implicit Learning of Visual Covariation , 1999 .

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

[15]  E. Van der Burg,et al.  The role of spatial and nonspatial information in visual selection. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[18]  Jon Driver,et al.  Attentional Preparation for a Lateralized Visual Distractor: Behavioral and fMRI Evidence , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

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

[21]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  What is top-down about contingent capture? , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[22]  K. Cave,et al.  Spatial Attention in Visual Search for Features and Feature Conjunctions , 1995 .

[23]  M. Posner,et al.  Attention and the detection of signals. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology.

[24]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Visual Selection: Usually Fast and Automatic; Seldom Slow and Volitional , 2018, Journal of cognition.

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

[26]  Steven J Luck,et al.  Capture versus suppression of attention by salient singletons: Electrophysiological evidence for an automatic attend-to-me signal , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[27]  Martin Eimer,et al.  Involuntary Attentional Capture is Determined by Task Set: Evidence from Event-related Brain Potentials , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[29]  Yuhong V Jiang,et al.  Rapid acquisition but slow extinction of an attentional bias in space. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[31]  Hsuan-Fu Chao Top-down attentional control for distractor locations: the benefit of precuing distractor locations on target localization and discrimination. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  B. Anderson The attention habit: how reward learning shapes attentional selection , 2016, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.