Event-related potentials reveal the effect of prior knowledge on competition for representation and attentional capture.

Objects compete for representation in our limited capacity visual system. We examined how this competition is influenced by top-down knowledge using event-related potentials. Competition was manipulated by presenting visual search arrays in which the target or distractor was the only color singleton compared to displays in which both singletons were presented. Experiments 1 and 2 manipulated whether the observer knew the color of the target in advance. Experiment 3 ruled out low-level sensory explanations. Results show that, under conditions of competition, the distractor does not elicit an N2pc when the target color is known. However, the N2pc elicited by the target is reduced in the presence of a distractor. These findings suggest that top-down knowledge can prevent the capture of attention by distracting information, but this prior knowledge does not eliminate the competitive influence of the distractor on the target.

[1]  Agnieszka Wykowska,et al.  Irrelevant Singletons in Visual Search Do Not Capture Attention but Can Produce Nonspatial Filtering Costs , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  D. Kourtis,et al.  An early parietal ERP component of the frontoparietal system: EDAN≠N2pc , 2010, Brain Research.

[3]  S. Luck,et al.  How does attention attenuate target-distractor interference in vision?. Evidence from magnetoencephalographic recordings. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[4]  P. Corballis,et al.  Dynamics of target and distractor processing in visual search: Evidence from event-related brain potentials , 2011, Neuroscience Letters.

[5]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  Fundamental properties of the N2pc as an index of spatial attention: effects of masking. , 2006, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[6]  Jeffrey D Schall,et al.  The role of working memory representations in the control of attention. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[7]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Electrophysiological Evidence of the Capture of Visual Attention , 2013, J. Cogn. Neurosci..

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

[9]  R. Remington,et al.  Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: evidence for two forms of attentional capture. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Stephen M. Emrich,et al.  Visual Search Elicits the Electrophysiological Marker of Visual Working Memory , 2009, PloS one.

[11]  S J Luck,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence for parallel and serial processing during visual search , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  S J Luck,et al.  Visual event-related potentials index focused attention within bilateral stimulus arrays. I. Evidence for early selection. , 1990, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[13]  Anders Petersen,et al.  Attentional Capture by Salient Distractors during Visual Search Is Determined by Temporal Task Demands , 2012, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[15]  Paul M. Corballis,et al.  Event-Related Potentials Dissociate Effects of Salience and Space in Biased Competition for Visual Representation , 2010, PloS one.

[16]  S. Luck,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search. , 1994, Psychophysiology.

[17]  M. Posner,et al.  Components of visual orienting , 1984 .

[18]  S. Luck,et al.  Neural sources of focused attention in visual search. , 2000, Cerebral cortex.

[19]  Geoffrey F. Woodman,et al.  Serial deployment of attention during visual search. , 2003 .

[20]  S. Luck,et al.  A Common Neural Mechanism for Preventing and Terminating the Allocation of Attention , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  Jeffrey R W Mounts,et al.  Competitive interaction degrades target selection: an ERP study. , 2009, Psychophysiology.

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

[23]  S J Luck,et al.  Visual event-related potentials index focused attention within bilateral stimulus arrays. II. Functional dissociation of P1 and N1 components. , 1990, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[24]  Ali Jannati,et al.  Tracking target and distractor processing in fixed-feature visual search: evidence from human electrophysiology. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  S. Luck,et al.  Attention-Related Modulation of Sensory-Evoked Brain Activity in a Visual Search Task , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[26]  R. Remington,et al.  Top-down modulation of preattentive processing: Testing the recovery account of contingent capture , 2006 .

[27]  J. Theeuwes Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[28]  S J Luck,et al.  Spatial filtering during visual search: evidence from human electrophysiology. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Electrophysiological Evidence of the Capture of Visual Attention , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[30]  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.

[31]  Clayton Hickey,et al.  Priming resolves perceptual ambiguity in visual search: Evidence from behaviour and electrophysiology , 2010, Vision Research.

[32]  J. Duncan EPS Mid-Career Award 2004: Brain mechanisms of attention , 2006, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[34]  Hans-Jochen Heinze,et al.  The Neural Site of Attention Matches the Spatial Scale of Perception , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[35]  Thomas Töllner,et al.  Top-down dimensional weight set determines the capture of visual attention: evidence from the PCN component. , 2012, Cerebral cortex.

[36]  Clayton Hickey,et al.  Target resolution in visual search involves the direct suppression of distractors: evidence from electrophysiology. , 2012, Psychophysiology.

[37]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  The center-surround profile of the focus of attention arises from recurrent processing in visual cortex. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

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

[39]  Diane M. Beck,et al.  Top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in biasing competition in the human brain , 2009, Vision Research.

[40]  Pierre Jolicœur,et al.  The "red-alert" effect in visual search: evidence from human electrophysiology. , 2013, Psychophysiology.

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

[42]  Dirk Kerzel,et al.  Attentional capture during visual search is attenuated by target predictability: evidence from the N2pc, Pd, and topographic segmentation. , 2013, Psychophysiology.