Suppression of salient stimuli inside the focus of attention.

We investigated how attention is distributed when one of two attended stimuli stands out from the visual context. Participants judged whether the line orientations within two geometric shapes at two predictable locations were same or different, which induced a wide focus of attention around the two locations. One of the geometric shapes surrounding the lines could be a salient color or shape singleton but was irrelevant for the task. In Experiment 1, the salient and non-salient items were both placed on the horizontal midline. Electrophysiological recordings at posterior electrode locations PO7/8 revealed a positivity between 200 and 300 ms contralateral to the singleton, consistent with the occurrence of the PD. The PD is thought to reflect attentional suppression. In Experiment 2, one attended item was placed on the vertical meridian and the other one on a lateral position. Lateral line targets triggered robust N2pc components when there was no singleton present, reflecting attentional selection. However, this N2pc to lateralized line targets was abolished when a singleton was presented at the same lateral position, and conversely, was increased when a singleton was presented on the vertical position. This suggests that salient elements inside the focus of attention are suppressed and attention is enhanced at the other location. It can be concluded that salient elements inside the focus of attention do not capture attention, as bottom-up control of attention would propose, but that salient elements are suppressed, possibly to assure unbiased processing of equally relevant stimuli.

Salient-but-irrelevant stimuli cause attentional capture in difficult, but attentional suppression in easy visual search.

Search for a shape target is difficult when its shape is similar to the shape of the surrounding nontargets and easy when it is dissimilar. We asked whether interference from a salient but irrelevant color singleton depended on search difficulty as manipulated by target-nontarget similarity. We found that interference was strong in difficult searches, and the occurrence of an electrophysiological index of attentional selectivity (the N2pc component) confirmed that attention was captured by the distractor. In contrast, interference from the distractor was weak with easy searches, and the occurrence of the PD component confirmed that saliency signals from the distractor were suppressed. The results suggest that attentional suppression of salient but irrelevant distractors is only possible when search is efficient (i.e., with low target-nontarget similarity), otherwise, attentional capture occurs. Further, we analyzed the Ppc component, a positivity occurring between 100 and 200 ms after stimulus onset contralateral to a salient feature discontinuity. It has been suggested that the Ppc reflects bottom-up saliency signals, but we found the Ppc to occur only when the salient stimulus was unlikely to be selected, as in efficient searches. Thus, attentional requirements modulate the Ppc component.

Target-nontarget similarity decreases search efficiency and increases stimulus-driven control in visual search.

Some points of criticism against the idea that attentional selection is controlled by bottom-up processing were dispelled by the attentional window account. The attentional window account claims that saliency computations during visual search are only performed for stimuli inside the attentional window. Therefore, a small attentional window may avoid attentional capture by salient distractors because it is likely that the salient distractor is located outside the window. In contrast, a large attentional window increases the chances of attentional capture by a salient distractor. Large and small attentional windows have been associated with efficient (parallel) and inefficient (serial) search, respectively. We compared the effect of a salient color singleton on visual search for a shape singleton during efficient and inefficient search. To vary search efficiency, the nontarget shapes were either similar or dissimilar with respect to the shape singleton. We found that interference from the color singleton was larger with inefficient than efficient search, which contradicts the attentional window account. While inconsistent with the attentional window account, our results are predicted by computational models of visual search. Because of target-nontarget similarity, the target was less salient with inefficient than efficient search. Consequently, the relative saliency of the color distractor was higher with inefficient than with efficient search. Accordingly, stronger attentional capture resulted. Overall, the present results show that bottom-up control by stimulus saliency is stronger when search is difficult, which is inconsistent with the attentional window account.

Electrophysiological evidence for attentional capture by irrelevant angry facial expressions: Naturalistic faces.

Recently, research on lateralized event related potentials (ERPs) in response to irrelevant distractors has revealed that angry but not happy schematic distractors capture spatial attention. Whether this effect occurs in the context of the natural expression of emotions is unknown. To fill this gap, observers were asked to judge the gender of a natural face surrounded by a color singleton among five other face identities. In contrast to previous studies, the similarity between the task-relevant feature (color) and the distractor features was low. On some trials, the target was displayed concurrently with an irrelevant angry or happy face. The lateralized ERPs to these distractors were measured as a marker of spatial attention. Our results revealed that angry face distractors, but not happy face distractors, triggered a PD, which is a marker of distractor suppression. Subsequent to the PD, angry distractors elicited a larger N450 component, which is associated with conflict detection. We conclude that threatening expressions have a high attentional priority because of their emotional value, resulting in early suppression and late conflict detection.

Active suppression of salient-but-irrelevant stimuli does not underlie resistance to visual interference.

In visual search for a shape target, interference from salient-but-irrelevant color singletons can be resisted in feature search mode, but not in singleton detection mode. In singleton detection mode, we observed a contralateral positivity (PD) after 260-340ms, suggesting that the salient distractor was suppressed. Because RTs in singleton detection mode increased when a distractor was present, we conclude that active suppression of distractors takes time. In feature search mode, no increase in RTs and no PD to the distractor was observed, showing that resistance to interference was not accomplished by suppression. Rather, the smaller N2pc to the target in feature search than in singleton detection mode suggests that enhancement of target features avoided interference. Thus, the strong top-down set in feature search mode eliminated the need to suppress the early attend-to-me signal (corresponding to the Ppc, from 160 to 210ms) that was generated by salient stimuli independently of search mode.

Electrophysiological evidence for attentional capture by irrelevant angry facial expressions.

Attention is believed to be biased toward threatening objects or faces. Therefore, we tested whether angry face stimuli would capture attention even when they are irrelevant to the task. Observers searched for a neutral face with a tilted nose. On some trials, the target was shown together with an irrelevant angry or happy face and we measured the N2pc (an electrophysiological marker of attentional selectivity) to the distractor expression. We found that angry distractors triggered an N2pc, whereas happy distractors did not. Follow-up experiments explored the reliability of the N2pc to angry distractors using upright or inverted angry faces, the eye or mouth region of angry faces and face-like stimuli. We conclude that a threatening expression has a high attentional priority due to its emotional content and captures attention despite being irrelevant for the task.

Nogo Stimuli Do Not Receive More Attentional Suppression or Response Inhibition than Neutral Stimuli: Evidence from the N2pc, PD, and N2 Components in a Spatial Cueing Paradigm.

It has been claimed that stimuli sharing the color of the nogo-target are suppressed because of the strong incentive to not process the nogo-target, but we failed to replicate this finding. Participants searched for a color singleton in the target display and indicated its shape when it was in the go color. If the color singleton in the target display was in the nogo color, they had to withhold the response. The target display was preceded by a cue display that also contained a color singleton (the cue). The cue was either in the color of the go or nogo target, or it was in an unrelated, neutral color. With cues in the go color, reaction times were shorter when the cue appeared at the same location as the target compared to when it appeared at a different location. Also, electrophysiological recordings showed that an index of attentional selection, the N2pc, was elicited by go cues. Surprisingly, we failed to replicate cueing costs for cues in the nogo color that were originally reported by Anderson and Folk (2012). Consistently, we also failed to find an electrophysiological index of attentional suppression (the PD) for cues in the nogo color. Further, fronto-central event-related potentials to the cue display showed the same negativity for nogo and neutral stimuli relative to go stimuli, which is at odds with response inhibition and conflict monitoring accounts of the Nogo-N2. Thus, the modified cueing paradigm employed here provides little evidence that features associated with nogo-targets are suppressed at the level of attention or response selection. Rather, nogo-stimuli are efficiently ignored and attention is focused on features that require a response.

Distractor rejection in visual search breaks down with more than a single distractor feature.

Previous research has established that interference from irrelevant-but-salient color distractors occurs when observers search for variable-shape singletons among uniform shapes (singleton detection), but not when they look for a specific shape among mixed shapes (feature search). In the current study, we replicated this finding, and additionally, we introduced a random variation of color. Instead of always presenting the same target and distractor colors, colors were swapped randomly from trial to trial. With random color variation, interference from color distractors was generally stronger, and in particular, it also occurred in feature search mode, suggesting that observers were unable to focus on the relevant dimension (shape) even under the most favorable conditions. A second experiment showed that interference in feature search mode occurred with variable distractor color when target color was fixed, but not with variable target color when distractor color was fixed. Overall, the results question the view that interference in feature search is absent because observers monitor a single feature map (i.e., shape). Rather, random variation of an irrelevant feature induces participants to also monitor the irrelevant feature, which results in interference. Thus, complete distractor rejection is limited to situations with a single distractor feature.