Learned value magnifies salience-based attentional capture

Visual attention is captured by physically salient stimuli (termed salience-based attentional capture), and by otherwise task-irrelevant stimuli that contain goal-related features (termed contingent attentional capture). Recently, we reported that physically nonsalient stimuli associated with value through reward learning also capture attention involuntarily (Anderson, Laurent, & Yantis, PNAS, 2011). Although it is known that physical salience and goal-relatedness both influence attentional priority, it is unknown whether or how attentional capture by a salient stimulus is modulated by its associated value. Here we show that a physically salient, task-irrelevant distractor previously associated with a large reward slows visual search more than an equally salient distractor previously associated with a smaller reward. This magnification of salience-based attentional capture by learned value extinguishes over several hundred trials. These findings reveal a broad influence of learned value on involuntary attentional capture.     

Temporal-Spatial Neural Activation Patterns Linked to Perceptual Encoding of Emotional Salience

It is well known that we continuously filter incoming sensory information, selectively allocating attention to what is important while suppressing distracting or irrelevant information. Yet questions remain about spatiotemporal patterns of neural processes underlying attentional biases toward emotionally significant aspects of the world. One index of affectively biased attention is an emotional variant of an attentional blink (AB) paradigm, which reveals enhanced perceptual encoding for emotionally salient over neutral stimuli under conditions of limited executive attention. The present study took advantage of the high spatial and temporal resolution of magnetoencephalography (MEG) to investigate neural activation related to emotional and neutral targets in an AB task. MEG data were collected while participants performed a rapid stimulus visual presentation task in which two target stimuli were embedded in a stream of distractor words. The first target (T1) was a number and the second (T2) either an emotionally salient or neutral word. Behavioural results replicated previous findings of greater accuracy for emotionally salient than neutral T2 words. MEG source analyses showed that activation in orbitofrontal cortex, characterized by greater power in the theta and alpha bands, and dorsolateral prefrontal activation were associated with successful perceptual encoding of emotionally salient relative to neutral words. These effects were observed between 250 and 550 ms, latencies associated with discrimination of perceived from unperceived stimuli. These data suggest that important nodes of both emotional salience and frontoparietal executive systems are associated with the emotional modulation of the attentional blink.     

Priming the Semantic Neighbourhood during the Attentional Blink

Background

When two targets are presented in close temporal proximity amongst a rapid serial visual stream of distractors, a period of disrupted attention and attenuated awareness lasting 200–500 ms follows identification of the first target (T1). This phenomenon is known as the “attentional blink” (AB) and is generally attributed to a failure to consolidate information in visual short-term memory due to depleted or disrupted attentional resources. Previous research has shown that items presented during the AB that fail to reach conscious awareness are still processed to relatively high levels, including the level of meaning. For example, missed word stimuli have been shown to prime later targets that are closely associated words. Although these findings have been interpreted as evidence for semantic processing during the AB, closely associated words (e.g., day-night) may also rely on specific, well-worn, lexical associative links which enhance attention to the relevant target.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We used a measure of semantic distance to create prime-target pairs that are conceptually close, but have low word associations (e.g., wagon and van) and investigated priming from a distractor stimulus presented during the AB to a subsequent target (T2). The stimuli were words (concrete nouns) in Experiment 1 and the corresponding pictures of objects in Experiment 2. In both experiments, report of T2 was facilitated when this item was preceded by a semantically-related distractor.

Conclusions/Significance

This study is the first to show conclusively that conceptual information is extracted from distractor stimuli presented during a period of attenuated awareness and that this information spreads to neighbouring concepts within a semantic network.     

Evidence Inhibition Responds Reactively to the Salience of Distracting Information during Focused Attention

Along with target amplification, distractor inhibition is regarded as a major contributor to selective attention. Some theories suggest that the strength of inhibitory processing is proportional to the salience of the distractor (i.e., inhibition reacts to the distractor intensity). Other theories suggest that the strength of inhibitory processing does not depend on the salience of the distractor (i.e., inhibition does not react to the distractor intensity). The present study aimed to elucidate the relationship between the intensity of a distractor and its subsequent inhibition during focused attention. A flanker task with a variable distractor-target stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) was used to measure both distractor interference and distractor inhibition. We manipulated the intensity of the distractor in two separate ways, by varying its distance from the target (Experiment 1) and by varying its brightness (Experiment 2). The results indicate that more intense distractors were associated with both increased interference and stronger distractor inhibition. The latter outcome provides novel support for the reactive inhibition hypothesis, which posits that inhibition reacts to the strength of distractor input, such that more salient distractors elicit stronger inhibition.     

Pre-stimulus activity predicts the winner of top-down vs. bottom-up attentional selection

Our ability to process visual information is fundamentally limited. This leads to competition between sensory information that is relevant for top-down goals and sensory information that is perceptually salient, but task-irrelevant. The aim of the present study was to identify, from EEG recordings, pre-stimulus and pre-saccadic neural activity that could predict whether top-down or bottom-up processes would win the competition for attention on a trial-by-trial basis. We employed a visual search paradigm in which a lateralized low contrast target appeared alone, or with a low (i.e., non-salient) or high contrast (i.e., salient) distractor. Trials with a salient distractor were of primary interest due to the strong competition between top-down knowledge and bottom-up attentional capture. Our results demonstrated that 1) in the 1-sec pre-stimulus interval, frontal alpha (8-12 Hz) activity was higher on trials where the salient distractor captured attention and the first saccade (bottom-up win); and 2) there was a transient pre-saccadic increase in posterior-parietal alpha (7-8 Hz) activity on trials where the first saccade went to the target (top-down win). We propose that the high frontal alpha reflects a disengagement of attentional control whereas the transient posterior alpha time-locked to the saccade indicates sensory inhibition of the salient distractor and suppression of bottom-up oculomotor capture.     

Distracting the mind improves performance: an ERP Study

Background

When a second target (T2) is presented in close succession of a first target (T1), people often fail to identify T2, a phenomenon known as the attentional blink (AB). However, the AB can be reduced substantially when participants are distracted during the task, for instance by a concurrent task, without a cost for T1 performance. The goal of the current study was to investigate the electrophysiological correlates of this paradoxical effect.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Participants successively performed three tasks, while EEG was recorded. The first task (standard AB) consisted of identifying two target letters in a sequential stream of distractor digits. The second task (grey dots task) was similar to the first task with the addition of an irrelevant grey dot moving in the periphery, concurrent with the central stimulus stream. The third task (red dot task) was similar to the second task, except that detection of an occasional brief color change in the moving grey dot was required. AB magnitude in the latter task was significantly smaller, whereas behavioral performance in the standard and grey dots tasks did not differ. Using mixed effects models, electrophysiological activity was compared during trials in the grey dots and red dot tasks that differed in task instruction but not in perceptual input. In the red dot task, both target-related parietal brain activity associated with working memory updating (P3) as well as distractor-related occipital activity was significantly reduced.

Conclusions/Significance

The results support the idea that the AB might (at least partly) arise from an overinvestment of attentional resources or an overexertion of attentional control, which is reduced when a distracting secondary task is carried out. The present findings bring us a step closer in understanding why and how an AB occurs, and how these temporal restrictions in selective attention can be overcome.     

Emotional Modulation of the Attentional Blink Is Awareness-Dependent

It is well known that emotion can modulate attentional processes. Previous studies have shown that even under restricted awareness, emotional facial expressions (especially threat-related) can guide the direction of spatial attention. However, it remains unclear whether emotional facial expressions under restricted awareness can affect temporal attention. To address this issue, we used a modified attentional blink (AB) paradigm in which masked (Experiment 1) or unmasked (Experiment 2) emotional faces (fearful or neutral) were presented before the AB sequence. We found that, in comparison with neutral faces, masked fearful faces significantly decreased the AB magnitude (Experiment 1), whereas unmasked fearful faces significantly increased the AB magnitude (Experiment 2). These results indicate that effects of emotional expression on the AB are modulated by the level of awareness.     

Do I Have My Attention? Speed of Processing Advantages for the Self-Face Are Not Driven by Automatic Attention Capture

We respond more quickly to our own face than to other faces, but there is debate over whether this is connected to attention-grabbing properties of the self-face. In two experiments, we investigate whether the self-face selectively captures attention, and the attentional conditions under which this might occur. In both experiments, we examined whether different types of face (self, friend, stranger) provide differential levels of distraction when processing self, friend and stranger names. In Experiment 1, an image of a distractor face appeared centrally – inside the focus of attention – behind a target name, with the faces either upright or inverted. In Experiment 2, distractor faces appeared peripherally – outside the focus of attention – in the left or right visual field, or bilaterally. In both experiments, self-name recognition was faster than other name recognition, suggesting a self-referential processing advantage. The presence of the self-face did not cause more distraction in the naming task compared to other types of face, either when presented inside (Experiment 1) or outside (Experiment 2) the focus of attention. Distractor faces had different effects across the two experiments: when presented inside the focus of attention (Experiment 1), self and friend images facilitated self and friend naming, respectively. This was not true for stranger stimuli, suggesting that faces must be robustly represented to facilitate name recognition. When presented outside the focus of attention (Experiment 2), no facilitation occurred. Instead, we report an interesting distraction effect caused by friend faces when processing strangers’ names. We interpret this as a “social importance” effect, whereby we may be tuned to pick out and pay attention to familiar friend faces in a crowd. We conclude that any speed of processing advantages observed in the self-face processing literature are not driven by automatic attention capture.     

Distractor Suppression When Attention Fails: Behavioral Evidence for a Flexible Selective Attention Mechanism

Despite consistent evidence showing that attention is a multifaceted mechanism that can operate at multiple levels of processing depending on the structure and demands of the task, investigations of the attentional blink phenomenon have consistently shown that the impairment in reporting the second of two targets typically occurs at a late, or post-perceptual, stage of processing. This suggests that the attentional blink phenomenon may represent the operation of a unique attentional mechanism that is not as flexible as other attentional mechanisms. To test whether the attentional blink is a fixed or flexible phenomenon, we manipulated first target task demands (i.e., difficulty) and measured the influence this had on processing a subsequently presented distractor and the second target. If the attentional blink represents a mechanism that is fixed and consistently fails at a single stage of processing, then manipulations of task difficulty should not affect distractor processing. However, if the attentional blink represents a more multifaceted and flexible mechanism, then task difficulty should modulate distractor processing. The results revealed that distractor processing during the AB was attenuated under high task difficulty. In addition, unlike previous studies, we failed to find a correlation between distractor processing and the severity of the attentional blink. Using a simulation, we demonstrate that the previously reported correlations may have been spurious and due to using variables that were not independent. Overall, the present results support the conclusion that the selectivity of attention during the AB is flexible and depends on the structure and demands of the task.     

Distractor effects upon habituation of complex stimuli

In two experiments, rats were given serial forward (the target followed by the distractor) or backward (the distractor followed by the target) exposure to two compound flavor stimuli that could be either similar (Salt-X/AX) or dissimilar (Salt-X/AY, Experiment 1; Salt/AX, Experiment 2). Following pre-exposure, the Salt element was presented in a compound with a novel flavor, N. The salience or effectiveness of the Salt element was then assessed by presenting the new flavor, N, under a state of salt appetite. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed that the order of presentation modulated the habituation of the Salt element only when the distractor was similar to the target: the Salt element was more salient after forward than backward pre-exposure. In the groups Dissimilar the order of pre-exposure was irrelevant; however, when the Salt element was presented in compound with a second element (Salt-X, Experiment 1), its salience was preserved, whereas when it was presented alone (Salt, Experiment 2) its salience was significantly reduced. These results, which are discussed in terms of Wagner (1981) theory of habituation, inform about the way in which stimuli presented closely in time are processed.     

No evidence for early modulation of evoked responses in primary visual cortex to irrelevant probe stimuli presented during the attentional blink

Background

During rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), observers often miss the second of two targets if it appears within 500 ms of the first. This phenomenon, called the attentional blink (AB), is widely held to reflect a bottleneck in the processing of rapidly sequential stimuli that arises after initial sensory registration is complete (i.e., at a relatively late, post-perceptual stage of processing). Contrary to this view, recent fMRI studies have found that activity in the primary visual area (V1), which represents the earliest cortical stage of visual processing, is attenuated during the AB. Here we asked whether such changes in V1 activity during the AB arise in the initial feedforward sweep of stimulus input, or instead reflect the influence of feedback signals from higher cortical areas.

Methodology/Principal Findings

EEG signals were recorded while participants monitored a sequential stream of distractor letters for two target digits (T1 and T2). Neural responses associated with an irrelevant probe stimulus presented simultaneously with T2 were measured using an ERP marker – the C1 component – that reflects initial perceptual processing of visual information in V1. As expected, T2 accuracy was compromised when the inter-target interval was brief, reflecting an AB deficit. Critically, however, the magnitude of the early C1 component evoked by the probe was not reduced during the AB.

Conclusions/Significance

Our finding that early sensory processing of irrelevant probe stimuli is not suppressed during the AB is consistent with theoretical models that assume that the bottleneck underlying the AB arises at a post-perceptual stage of processing. This suggests that reduced neural activity in V1 during the AB is driven by re-entrant signals from extrastriate areas that regulate early cortical activity via feedback connections with V1.     

A Salient and Task-Irrelevant Collinear Structure Hurts Visual Search

Salient distractors draw our attention spontaneously, even when we intentionally want to ignore them. When this occurs, the real targets close to or overlapping with the distractors benefit from attention capture and thus are detected and discriminated more quickly. However, a puzzling opposite effect was observed in a search display with a column of vertical collinear bars presented as a task-irrelevant distractor [6]. In this case, it was harder to discriminate the targets overlapping with the salient distractor. Here we examined whether this effect originated from factors known to modulate attentional capture: (a) low probability—the probability occurrence of target location at the collinear column was much less (14%) than the rest of the display (86%), and observers might strategically direct their attention away from the collinear distractor; (b) attentional control setting—the distractor and target task interfered with each other because they shared the same continuity set in attentional task; and/or (c) lack of time to establish the optional strategy. We tested these hypotheses by (a) increasing to 60% the trials in which targets overlapped with the same collinear distractor columns, (b) replacing the target task to be connectivity-irrelevant (i.e., luminance discrimination), and (c) having our observers practice the same search task for 10 days. Our results speak against all these hypotheses and lead us to conclude that a collinear distractor impairs search at a level that is unaffected by probabilistic information, attentional setting, and learning.     

Saliency changes appearance

Numerous studies have suggested that the deployment of attention is linked to saliency. In contrast, very little is known about how salient objects are perceived. To probe the perception of salient elements, observers compared two horizontally aligned stimuli in an array of eight elements. One of them was salient because of its orientation or direction of motion. We observed that the perceived luminance contrast or color saturation of the salient element increased: the salient stimulus looked even more salient. We explored the possibility that changes in appearance were caused by attention. We chose an event-related potential indexing attentional selection, the N2pc, to answer this question. The absence of an N2pc to the salient object provides preliminary evidence against involuntary attentional capture by the salient element. We suggest that signals from a master saliency map flow back into individual feature maps. These signals boost the perceived feature contrast of salient objects, even on perceptual dimensions different from the one that initially defined saliency.     

Location constancy and its effect on visual selection.

The present study investigated how location constancy influences selective attention to a cued location. The relative effectiveness of target/distractor distance and target/distractor compatibility were studied under covert and overt attention conditions. Experiment 1 measured reaction time and error rates to a scaled target letter that appeared at varied locations from 0.62 to 20 deg. Experiments 2 and 3 looked at covert/overt attention when the target location was fixed rather than varied within a block of trials. To provide a comprehensive assessment of the two primary variables across location constancy conditions, effect sizes for these results as well as for related past research (Goolkasian, 1999; Goolkasian and Tarantino, 1999) are presented. The findings suggest that the location of the target (foveal vs peripheral) does not influence attentional patterns as much as the consistency of its location. When a target appears at varied locations from trial to trial, distractor compatibility effects are in general stronger than the effect of target/distractor distance. However, the relative importance of these two variables reverses when the presentation location of the target is fixed at a constant location.     

Distractor Detection and Suppression Have a Beneficial Effect on Attentional Blink

Background

Attentional blink (AB) is a phenomenon that describes the difficulty individuals have in reporting the second of two masked targets if the second target (T2) arrives 200–500 ms after the first target (T1). Recent studies explain the AB from cognitive resources limitation to distractors interference. For example, the temporary loss of control (TLC) hypothesis suggests that the AB is conduced by distractors disrupting the input filter for target processing. The inhibition models suggest that the T1+1 distractor triggers a suppression mechanism which could be beneficial for T1 processing but would suppress T2 at short T1–T2 lags. These models consider that the AB is caused by the appearance of distractors. However, in the present study, two methods were taken to help individuals to detect the distractors more effectively. An attenuated AB deficit was found when the distractors could be excluded or suppressed in time. We consider that under an appropriate condition the distractors detection and suppression have a beneficial effect on attentional blink.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Two methods were employed to help individuals to detect the distractors more effectively: enlarging the low-level-physical characteristic difference between targets and distractors (Experiment 1) and restricting the sets of distractors (Experiment 2). Attenuated AB deficits were found as using the above manipulations.

Conclusions/Significance

The present study found when the distractors are detected or identified quickly, they could be effectively suppressed, in order to reduce the interference from the targets and result in a smaller AB deficit. We suggest that the suppression mechanism for distractors have a beneficial effect on AB.     

Target cueing provides support for target- and resource-based models of the attentional blink

The attentional blink (AB) describes a time-based deficit in processing the second of two masked targets. The AB is attenuated if successive targets appear between the first and final target, or if a cueing target is positioned before the final target. Using various speeds of stimulus presentation, the current study employed successive targets and cueing targets to confirm and extend an understanding of target-target cueing in the AB. In Experiment 1, three targets were presented sequentially at rates of 30 msec/item or 90 msec/item. Successive targets presented at 90 msec improved performance compared with non-successive targets. However, accuracy was equivalently high for successive and non-successive targets presented at 30 msec/item, suggesting that--regardless of whether they occurred consecutively--those items fell within the temporally defined attentional window initiated by the first target. Using four different presentation speeds, Experiment 2 confirmed the time-based definition of the AB and the success of target-cueing at 30 msec/item. This experiment additionally revealed that cueing was most effective when resources were not devoted to the cue, thereby implicating capacity limitations in the AB. Across both experiments, a novel order-error measure suggested that errors tend to decrease with an increasing duration between the targets, but also revealed that certain stimulus conditions result in stable order accuracy. Overall, the results are best encapsulated by target-based and resource-sharing theories of the AB, which collectively value the contributions of capacity limitations and optimizing transient attention in time.     

Distractor inhibition predicts individual differences in the attentional blink

Background

The attentional blink (AB) refers to humans'' impaired ability to detect the second of two targets (T2) in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream of distractors if it appears within 200–600 ms of the first target (T1). Here we examined whether humans'' ability to inhibit distractors in the RSVP stream is a key determinant of individual differences in T1 performance and AB magnitude.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We presented subjects with RSVP streams (93.3 ms/item) of letters containing white distractors, a red T1 and a green T2. Subjects'' ability to suppress distractors was assessed by determining the extent to which their second target performance was primed by a preceding distractor that shared the same identity as T2. Individual subjects'' magnitude of T2 priming from this distractor was found to be negatively correlated with their T1 accuracy and positively related to their AB magnitude. In particular, subjects with attenuated ABs showed negative priming (i.e., worse T2 performance when the priming distractor appeared in the RSVP stream compared to when it was absent), whereas those with large ABs displayed positive priming (i.e., better T2 performance when the priming distractor appeared in the RSVP stream compared to when it was absent). Thus, a subject''s ability to suppress distractors, as assessed by T2 priming magnitude, predicted both their T1 performance and AB magnitude.

Conclusions/Significance

These results confirm that distractor suppression plays a key role in RSVP target selection and support the hypothesis that the AB results, at least in part, from a failure of distractor inhibition.     

What Determines Auditory Distraction? On the Roles of Local Auditory Changes and Expectation Violations

Both the acoustic variability of a distractor sequence and the degree to which it violates expectations are important determinants of auditory distraction. In four experiments we examined the relative contribution of local auditory changes on the one hand and expectation violations on the other hand in the disruption of serial recall by irrelevant sound. We present evidence for a greater disruption by auditory sequences ending in unexpected steady state distractor repetitions compared to auditory sequences with expected changing state endings even though the former contained fewer local changes. This effect was demonstrated with piano melodies (Experiment 1) and speech distractors (Experiment 2). Furthermore, it was replicated when the expectation violation occurred after the encoding of the target items (Experiment 3), indicating that the items'' maintenance in short-term memory was disrupted by attentional capture and not their encoding. This seems to be primarily due to the violation of a model of the specific auditory distractor sequences because the effect vanishes and even reverses when the experiment provides no opportunity to build up a specific neural model about the distractor sequence (Experiment 4). Nevertheless, the violation of abstract long-term knowledge about auditory regularities seems to cause a small and transient capture effect: Disruption decreased markedly over the course of the experiments indicating that participants habituated to the unexpected distractor repetitions across trials. The overall pattern of results adds to the growing literature that the degree to which auditory distractors violate situation-specific expectations is a more important determinant of auditory distraction than the degree to which a distractor sequence contains local auditory changes.     

Spatial and temporal dynamics of attentional guidance during inefficient visual search

Spotting a prey or a predator is crucial in the natural environment and relies on the ability to extract quickly pertinent visual information. The experimental counterpart of this behavior is visual search (VS) where subjects have to identify a target amongst several distractors. In difficult VS tasks, it has been found that the reaction time (RT) is influenced by salience factors, such as the target-distractor similarity, and this finding is usually regarded as evidence for a guidance of attention by preattentive mechanisms. However, the use of RT measurements, a parameter which depends on multiple factors, allows only very indirect inferences about the underlying attentional mechanisms. The purpose of the present study was to determine the influence of salience factors on attentional guidance during VS, by measuring directly attentional allocation. We studied attention allocation by using a dual covert VS task in subjects who had 1) to detect a target amongst different items and 2) to report letters briefly flashed inside those items at different delays. As predicted, we showed that parallel processes guide attention towards the most relevant item by virtue of both goal-directed and stimulus-driven factors, and we demonstrated that this attentional selection is a prerequisite for target detection. In addition, we show that when the target is characterized by two features (conjunction VS), the goal-directed effects of both features are initially combined into a unique salience value, but at a later stage, grouping phenomena interact with the salience computation, and lead to the selection of a whole group of items. These results, in line with Guided Search Theory, show that efficient and rapid preattentive processes guide attention towards the most salient item, allowing to reduce the number of attentional shifts needed to find the target.     

Preparatory effects of distractor suppression: evidence from visual cortex

Spatial selective attention is the mechanism that facilitates the selection of relevant information over irrelevant information in the visual field. The current study investigated whether foreknowledge of the presence or absence of distractors surrounding an impending target stimulus results in preparatory changes in visual cortex. We cued the location of the target and the presence or absence of distractors surrounding the target while changes in blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signals were measured. In line with prior work, we found that top-down spatial attention resulted in an increased contralateral BOLD response, evoked by the cue throughout early visual cortex (areas V1, V2 and V3). In addition, cues indicating distractor presence evoked a substantial increase in the magnitude of the BOLD signal in visual area V3, but not in V2 or V1. This study shows that prior knowledge concerning the presence of a distractor results in enhanced attentional modulation of visual cortex, in visual areas where neuronal receptive fields are large enough to encompass both targets and distractors. We interpret these findings as evidence that top-down attentional control processes include active preparatory suppression mechanisms for irrelevant, distracting information in the visual scene.