Learning to ignore salient color distractors during serial search: evidence for experience-dependent attention allocation strategies

Previous research has investigated whether visual salience (i.e., how much an item stands out) or perceptual load (i.e., display complexity) is the dominant factor in visual selective attention. The evidence has been mixed, with some findings supporting a dominant role for visual salience and some findings supporting a dominant role for perceptual load. However, the complex displays used to impose high perceptual load also introduce a third factor that has gone understudied until recently: the interplay between identity dilution and exposure duration. Adding display items to increase perceptual load dilutes a distractor's identity, which could decrease interference, but the task generally takes longer, which could increase distractor interference. To clarify how these factors interact, the present study used converging measures of distractor interference—both compatibility and singleton presence—to disambiguate effects due to salience, perceptual load, and identity dilution/exposure duration. Compatibility effects support perceptual load as the dominant factor, whereas singleton presence effects do not (Experiment 1). Consistent with salience-based mechanisms, significant distractor processing (both compatibility and presence effects) occurred under high perceptual load when singleton present trials preceded singleton absent trials (Experiment 2A). However, consistent with load-based mechanisms, non-significant compatibility effects occurred under high perceptual load when singleton absent trials preceded singleton present trials (Experiment 2B). Thus, the competition between salience-based and load-based mechanisms depended on the amount of prior experience with singleton present vs. absent displays, which in turn depended on the use of broad vs. narrow attentional allocation strategies. These experience-dependent effects provide further evidence that attention allocation strategies are contingent on factors such as task context and experience.

[1]  E. Viding,et al.  Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[2]  Charles L. Folk,et al.  Do locally defined feature discontinuities capture attention? , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  Bradley S. Gibson,et al.  The identity intrusion effect: Attentional capture or perceptual load? , 2008 .

[4]  Gregory J. Davis,et al.  Symbolic control of visual attention: Semantic constraints on the spatial distribution of attention , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[5]  N. Lavie.  Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  L. Paquet,et al.  Evidence for selective target processing with a low perceptual load flankers task , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[7]  S. Vecera,et al.  Attentional capture under high perceptual load , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[8]  Dominique Lamy,et al.  Attentional capture in singleton-detection and feature-search modes. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  J. Theeuwes.  Perceptual selectivity is task dependent: evidence from selective search. , 1990, Acta psychologica.

[10]  N. Lavie.  Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  N. Lavie,et al.  On the Efficiency of Visual Selective Attention: Efficient Visual Search Leads to Inefficient Distractor Rejection , 1997 .

[12]  H. Egeth,et al.  Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  S. Yantis,et al.  Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  Adam T Biggs,et al.  Visual salience can co-exist with dilution during visual selection. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Allison G. McGrath,et al.  Cuing Interacts with Perceptual Load in Visual Search , 2002, Psychological science.

[16]  Y. Tsal,et al.  Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention , 2010, Vision Research.

[17]  J. Deutsch,et al.  Attention: Some theoretical considerations. , 1963 .

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

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

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

[21]  H. Müller,et al.  Attentional capture by salient color singleton distractors is modulated by top-down dimensional set. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  Jay Pratt,et al.  Learning to ignore: Acquisition of sustained attentional suppression , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[24]  H. Egeth,et al.  Attention on autopilot: Past experience and attentional set , 2006 .

[25]  T. A. Kelley,et al.  Learning to attend: effects of practice on information selection. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[26]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  On the time course of top-down and bottom-up control of visual attention , 2000 .

[27]  Bradley S. Gibson,et al.  Competition between color salience and perceptual load during visual selection can be biased by top-down set , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[28]  D. Broadbent.  Perception and communication , 1958 .

[29]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  Michael Zehetleitner,et al.  Top-down control of attention: it's gradual, practice-dependent, and hierarchically organized. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  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.

[32]  Nilli Lavie,et al.  The role of perceptual load in visual awareness , 2006, Brain Research.

[33]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Attentional control during visual search: the effect of irrelevant singletons. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  Andrew B. Leber,et al.  It’s under control: Top-down search strategies can override attentional capture , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[36]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  The size of an attentional window modulates attentional capture by color singletons , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[37]  J. Theeuwes.  Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  Stacy Eltiti,et al.  Selective target processing: Perceptual load or distractor salience? , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[39]  Y. Tsal,et al.  Diluting the burden of load: perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  J. Theeuwes.  Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[41]  Y. Tsal,et al.  Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[42]  Daryl E. Wilson,et al.  Dilution, not load, affects distractor processing. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[43]  Dominique Lamy,et al.  Intertrial target-feature changes do not lead to more distraction by singletons: Target uncertainty does , 2008, Vision Research.

[44]  Kenneth I Forster,et al.  DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.