The influence of display-to-display feature changes on net cueing effects: Evidence for a contribution of object-file updating

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 908-919
Author(s):  
Tobias Schoeberl ◽  
Florian Goller ◽  
Ulrich Ansorge
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Capture ◽  
Object File ◽  
Attention Capture ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Matching Conditions ◽  
Feature Search ◽  
Cueing Effect ◽  
Invalid Condition ◽  
Singleton Search ◽  
Colour Changes

In spatial cueing, presenting a peripheral cue at the same position as a to-be-searched-for target (valid condition) facilitates search relative to a cue presented away from the target (invalid condition). It is assumed that this cueing effect reflects spatial attentional capture to the cued position that facilitates search in valid relative to invalid conditions. However, the effect is typically stronger for top-down matching cues that resemble the targets than for non-matching cues that are different from targets. One factor which could contribute to this effect is that in valid non-matching conditions, a cue-to-target colour difference could prompt an object-updating cost of the target that counteracts facilitative influences of attention capture by the valid cues (this has been shown especially in known-singleton search). We tested this prediction by introducing colour changes at target locations in valid and invalid conditions in feature search. This should compensate for selective updating costs in valid conditions and unmask the true capture effect of non-matching cues. In addition, in top-down matching conditions, colour changes at target positions in invalid conditions should increase the cueing effect, now by selective updating costs in addition to capture away from the targets in invalid conditions. Both predictions were borne out by the results, supporting a contribution of object-file updating to net cueing effects. However, we found little evidence for attentional capture by non-matching cues in feature search even when the selective cost by object-file updating in only valid conditions was compensated for.

TESTING GOAL-DRIVEN CAPTURE BY THREAT

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Robert Harrison Brown
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Attentional Capture ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Experimental Manipulation ◽  
Contingent Capture ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Affective Stimuli ◽  
Clinical Disorders ◽  
Positive Stimuli

Attention has long been characterised within prominent models as reflecting a competition between goal-driven and stimulus-driven processes. It remains unclear, however, how involuntary attentional capture by affective stimuli, such as threat-laden content, fits into such models. While such effects were traditionally held to reflect stimulus-driven processes, recent research has increasingly implicated a critical role of goal-driven processes. Here we test an alternative goal-driven account of involuntary attentional capture by threat, using an experimental manipulation of goal-driven attention. To this end we combined the classic ‘contingent capture’ and ‘emotion-induced blink’ (EIB) paradigms in an RSVP task with both positive or threatening target search goals. Across six experiments, positive and threat distractors were presented in peripheral, parafoveal, and central locations. Across all distractor locations, we found that involuntary attentional capture by irrelevant threatening distractors could be induced via the adoption of a search goal for a threatening category; adopting a goal for a positive category conversely led to capture only by positive stimuli. Our findings provide direct experimental evidence for a causal role of voluntary goals in involuntary capture by irrelevant threat stimuli, and hence demonstrate the plausibility of a top-down account of this phenomenon. We discuss the implications of these findings in relation to current cognitive models of attention and clinical disorders.

scholarly journals Proportional Context of Distracters alters Top-Down Sets during Contingent Attention Capture

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 947
Author(s):  
Dick Dubbelde ◽  
Adam Greenberg
Keyword(s):  
Attention Capture ◽  
Top Down

scholarly journals Capture by Context Elements, Not Attentional Suppression of Distractors, Explains the PD with Small Search Displays

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 1170-1183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Kerzel ◽  
Nicolas Burra
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Capture ◽  
Attentional Selection ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Voltage Difference ◽  
Context Element ◽  
Selection Of

Top–down control of attention allows us to resist attentional capture by salient stimuli that are irrelevant to our current goals. Recently, it was proposed that attentional suppression of salient distractors contributes to top–down control by biasing attention away from the distractor. With small search displays, attentional suppression of salient distractors may even result in reduced RTs on distractor-present trials. In support of attentional suppression, electrophysiological measures revealed a positivity between 200 and 300 msec contralateral to the distractor, which has been referred to as distractor positivity (PD). We reexamined distractor benefits with small search displays and found that the positivity to the distractor was followed by a negativity to the distractor. The negativity, referred to as N2pc, is considered an index of attentional selection of the contralateral element. Thus, attentional suppression of the distractor (PD) preceded attentional capture (N2pc) by the distractor, which is at odds with the idea that attentional suppression avoids attentional capture by the distractor. Instead, we suggest that the initial “PD” is not a positivity to the distractor but rather a negativity (N2pc) to the contralateral context element, suggesting that, initially, the context captured attention. Subsequently, the distractor was selected because, paradoxically, participants searched all lateral target positions (even when irrelevant) before they examined the vertical positions. Consistent with this idea, search times were shorter for lateral than vertical targets. In summary, the early voltage difference in small search displays is unrelated to distractor suppression but may reflect capture by the context.

Top-down Attention Control and Bottom-up Attention Capture During Threat of Shock

2014 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. 282
Author(s):  
Bartlett A. H. Russell ◽  
Alessandro Prosacco ◽  
Bradley D. Hatfield
Keyword(s):  
Attention Capture ◽  
Attention Control ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Threat Of Shock
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document