Hierarchy of Intra- and Cross-modal Redundancy Gains in Visuo-tactile Search: Evidence from the Posterior Contralateral Negativity.

Redundant combination of target features from separable dimensions can expedite visual search. The dimension-weighting account explains these "redundancy gains" by assuming that the attention-guiding priority map integrates the feature-contrast signals generated by targets within the respective dimensions. The present study investigated whether this hierarchical architecture is sufficient to explain the gains accruing from redundant targets defined by features in different modalities, or whether an additional level of modality-specific priority coding is necessary, as postulated by the modality-weighting account (MWA). To address this, we had observers perform a visuo-tactile search task in which targets popped out by a visual feature (color or shape) or a tactile feature (vibro-tactile frequency) as well as any combination of these features. The RT gains turned out larger for visuo-tactile versus visual redundant targets, as predicted by the MWA. In addition, we analyzed two lateralized event-related EEG components: the posterior (PCN) and central (CCN) contralateral negativities, which are associated with visual and tactile attentional selection, respectively. The CCN proved to be a stable somatosensory component, unaffected by cross-modal redundancies. In contrast, the PCN was sensitive to cross-modal redundancies, evidenced by earlier onsets and higher amplitudes, which could not be explained by linear superposition of the earlier CCN onto the later PCN. Moreover, linear mixed-effect modeling of the PCN amplitude and timing parameters accounted for approximately 25% of the behavioral RT variance. Together, these behavioral and PCN effects support the hierarchy of priority-signal computation assumed by the MWA.

Little engagement of attention by salient distractors defined in a different dimension or modality to the visual search target.

Singleton distractors may inadvertently capture attention, interfering with the task at hand. The underlying neural mechanisms of how we prevent or handle distractor interference remain elusive. Here, we varied the type of salient distractor introduced in a visual search task: the distractor could be defined in the same (shape) dimension as the target, a different (color) dimension, or a different (tactile) modality (intra-dimensional, cross-dimensional, and, respectively, cross-modal distractor, all matched for physical salience); and besides behavioral interference, we measured lateralized electrophysiological indicators of attentional selectivity (the N2pc, Ppc, PD , CCN/CCP, CDA, and cCDA). The results revealed the intra-dimensional distractor to produce the strongest reaction-time interference, associated with the smallest target-elicited N2pc. In contrast, the cross-dimensional and cross-modal distractors did not engender any significant interference, and the target-elicited N2pc was comparable to the condition in which the search display contained only the target singleton, thus ruling out early attentional capture. Moreover, the cross-modal distractor elicited a significant early CCN/CCP, but did not influence the target-elicited N2pc, suggesting that the tactile distractor is registered by the somatosensory system (rather than being proactively suppressed), without, however, engaging attention. Together, our findings indicate that, in contrast to distractors defined in the same dimension as the target, distractors singled out in a different dimension or modality can be effectively prevented to engage attention, consistent with dimension- or modality-weighting accounts of attentional priority computation.

Long-term (statistically learnt) and short-term (inter-trial) distractor-location effects arise at different pre- and post-selective processing stages.

A salient distractor interferes less with visual search if it appears at a location where it is likely to occur, referred to as distractor-location probability cueing. Conversely, if the current target appears at the same location as a distractor on the preceding trial, search is impeded. While these two location-specific "suppression" effects reflect long-term, statistically learnt and short-term, inter-trial adaptations of the system to distractors, it is unclear at what stage(s) of processing they arise. Here, we adopted the additional-singleton paradigm and examined lateralized event-related potentials (L-ERPs) and lateralized alpha (8-12 Hz) power to track the temporal dynamics of these effects. Behaviorally, we confirmed both effects: reaction times (RTs) interference was reduced for distractors at frequent versus rare (distractor) locations, and RTs were delayed for targets that appeared at previous distractor versus non-distractor locations. Electrophysiologically, the statistical-learning effect was not associated with lateralized alpha power during the pre-stimulus period. Rather, it was seen in an early N1pc referenced to the frequent distractor location (whether or not a distractor or a target occurred there), indicative of a learnt top-down prioritization of this location. This early top-down influence was systematically modulated by (competing) target- and distractor-generated bottom-up saliency signals in the display. In contrast, the inter-trial effect was reflected in an enhanced SPCN when the target was preceded by a distractor at its location. This suggests that establishing that an attentionally selected item is a task-relevant target, rather than an irrelevant distractor, is more demanding at a previously "rejected" distractor location.