Explore the vast range of titles available.

Our ability to control our attention to focus on goal-relevant information is critical for functioning in daily life. In addition to the typical attentional control driven by target enhancement described in most theories of attention, recent research has focused on our ability to use information about distractions maintained in working memory to direct our attention away from known distractors. Using these negative templates can improve the efficiency of attention, much in the same way as enhancing information matching search targets. However, these effects only occur for specific tasks or in specific circumstances. In this review, I will focus on our emerging understanding of the relationship between distractor ignoring from negative templates and target enhancement from positive templates. I will also highlight key remaining questions for further study.

Our sensory environments contain more information than we can process, and successful behaviors require the ability to separate task-relevant information from task-irrelevant information. Much research on attention has focused on the mechanisms that result in selection of desired information, but much less is known about how distracting information is ignored. Here, we describe evidence that strategic, learned, and passive information can all contribute to better distractor ignoring. The evidence suggests that there are multiple ways in which distractor ignoring is supported, and these ways may be different from those of target selection. Future work will need to identify the mechanisms by which each source of information adjusts attentional priority such that irrelevant information is better ignored.

In visual search tasks, cues indicating the upcoming distractor color can benefit search performance compared with uninformative cues. However, benefits from these negative cues are consistently smaller than benefits from positive cues (cuing target color), even when both cues are equally informative. This suggests that using a negative template is less effective than using a positive template. Here, we contrast the early attentional effects of negative and positive templates using the letter probe technique. On most trials, participants searched for a shape-defined target after receiving a positive, negative, or neutral color cue. On occasional probe trials, letters briefly appeared on the search items, and participants reported as many letters as possible. Examining the proportion of letters reported on potential targets versus distractors provided a snapshot of attentional allocation at the time of the probe. Across probes at 100, 250, and 400 ms, participants recalled more letters on target-colored objects than letters on distractor-colored objects following both negative and positive cues. These cuing benefits on probe report trials were larger at later probe times than early probe times, indicating both types of cues became more effective across time. Importantly, negative cue probe benefits were consistently smaller than positive cue benefits. Finally, following an extremely short probe (25 ms), we found no RT benefit following negative cues as well as no evidence that negatively cued items capture attention. These results help explain the previously reported differences in RT benefit following positive and negative cues, and support the idea of early active attentional suppression.

In daily life, it is critical that we are able to direct our visual attention to information that is important for our tasks while avoiding distracting information. To control our attention, we engage \"attentional templates\" that reconfigure how incoming visual signals are processed in our brains. But what are these attentional templates and how do they work? Much of our understanding of the nature of attentional templates has been driven by the proposed mechanism linking attentional templates and working memory from the biased competition model [1] (Desimone and Duncan, 1995). Over the past 20 years, research inspired by this proposal has vastly increased our understanding of attentional control. This work has highlighted flexibility in attentional control, with multiple sources of control and flexible enhancement or suppression based on task demands.

Hypothesis-driven research rests on clearly articulated scientific theories. The building blocks for communicating these theories are scientific terms. Obviously, communication – and thus, scientific progress – is hampered if the meaning of these terms varies idiosyncratically across (sub)fields and even across individual researchers within the same subfield. We have formed an international group of experts representing various theoretical stances with the goal to homogenize the use of the terms that are most relevant to fundamental research on visual distraction in visual search. Our discussions revealed striking heterogeneity and we had to invest much time and effort to increase our mutual understanding of each other’s use of central terms, which turned out to be strongly related to our respective theoretical positions. We present the outcomes of these discussions in a glossary and provide some context in several essays. Specifically, we explicate how central terms are used in the distraction literature and consensually sharpen their definitions in order to enable communication across theoretical standpoints. Where applicable, we also explain how the respective constructs can be measured. We believe that this novel type of adversarial collaboration can serve as a model for other fields of psychological research that strive to build a solid groundwork for theorizing and communicating by establishing a common language. For the field of visual distraction, the present paper should facilitate communication across theoretical standpoints and may serve as an introduction and reference text for newcomers.

Attention allows us to focus on relevant information while ignoring distractions. Effective suppression of distracting information is crucial for efficient visual search. Recent studies have developed two paradigms to investigate attentional suppression: cued-suppression which is based on top-down control, and learned-suppression which is based on selection history. While both types of suppression reportedly engage proactive control, it remains unclear whether they rely on shared mechanisms. This study aimed to determine the relationship between cued- and learned-suppression. In a within-subjects design, 54 participants performed a cued-suppression task where pre-cues indicated upcoming target or distractor colors, and a learned-suppression task where a salient color distractor was present or absent. No significant correlation emerged between performance in the two tasks, suggesting distinct suppression mechanisms. Cued-suppression correlated with visual working memory capacity, indicating reliance on explicit control. In contrast, learned-suppression correlated with everyday distractibility, suggesting implicit control based on regularities. These results provide evidence for heterogeneous proactive control mechanisms underlying cued- and learned-suppression. While both engage inhibition, cued-suppression relies on deliberate top-down control modulated by working memory, whereas learned-suppression involves implicit suppression shaped by selection history and distractibility traits.

Recent evidence shows that when the contents of visual working memory overlap with targets and distractors in a pop-out search task, intertrial priming is inhibited (Kristjánsson, Sævarsson & Driver, Psychon Bull Rev 20(3):514–521, 2013, Experiment 2, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review). This may reflect an interesting interaction between implicit short-term memory—thought to underlie intertrial priming—and explicit visual working memory. Evidence from a non-pop-out search task suggests that it may specifically be holding distractors in visual working memory that disrupts intertrial priming (Cunningham & Egeth, Psychol Sci 27(4):476–485, 2016, Experiment 2, Psychological Science). We examined whether the inhibition of priming depends on whether feature values in visual working memory overlap with targets or distractors in the pop-out search, and we found that the inhibition of priming resulted from holding distractors in visual working memory. These results are consistent with separate mechanisms of target and distractor effects in intertrial priming, and support the notion that the impact of implicit short-term memory and explicit visual working memory can interact when each provides conflicting attentional signals.

Recent research using change-detection tasks has shown that a directed-forgetting cue, indicating that a subset of the information stored in memory can be forgotten, significantly benefits the other information stored in visual working memory. How do these directed-forgetting cues aid the memory representations that are retained? We addressed this question in the present study by using a recall paradigm to measure the nature of the retained memory representations. Our results demonstrated that a directed-forgetting cue leads to higher-fidelity representations of the remaining items and a lower probability of dropping these representations from memory. Next, we showed that this is made possible by the to-be-forgotten item being expelled from visual working memory following the cue, allowing maintenance mechanisms to be focused on only the items that remain in visual working memory. Thus, the present findings show that cues to forget benefit the remaining information in visual working memory by fundamentally improving their quality relative to conditions in which just as many items are encoded but no cue is provided.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by social and communication deficits (SCDs), restricted and repetitive behaviors (RRBs) and fixated interests. Despite its prevalence, development of effective therapy for ASD is hindered by its symptomatic and neurophysiological heterogeneities. To comprehensively explore these heterogeneities, we developed a new analytical framework combining contrastive learning and sparse canonical correlation analysis that identifies symptom-linked resting-state electroencephalographic connectivity dimensions within 392 ASD samples. We present two dimensions with multivariate connectivity basis exhibiting significant correlations with SCD and RRB, confirm their robustness through cross-validation and demonstrate their conceptual generalizability using an independent dataset ( = 222). Specifically, the right inferior parietal lobe is the core region for RRB, while connectivity between the left angular gyrus and the right middle temporal gyrus show key contribution to SCD. These findings provide a promising avenue to parse ASD heterogeneity with high clinical translatability, paving the way for ASD treatment development and precision medicine.

Cognitive theories of social anxiety disorder suggest that biased attention plays a key role in maintaining symptoms. These biases include self-focus and attention to socially threatening stimuli in the environment. The goal of this study was to utilize ERPs that are elicited by a change detection task to examine biases in selective attention (i.e., N2pc) and working memory maintenance (i.e., contralateral delay activity; CDA). Additionally, the effect of self-focus was examined using false heart rate feedback. In support of the manipulation, self-focus cues resulted in greater self-reported self-consciousness and task interference, enhanced anterior P2 amplitude and reduced SPN amplitude. Moreover, P2 amplitude for self-focus cues was correlated with reduced task performance for socially anxious subjects only. The difference in P2 amplitude between self-focus and standard cues was correlated with social anxiety independent of depression. As hypothesized, socially anxious participants ( n = 20) showed early selection and maintenance of disgust faces relative to neutral faces as indicated by the N2pc and CDA components. Nonanxious controls ( n = 22) did not show these biases. During self-focus cues, controls showed marginal evidence of biased selection for disgust faces, whereas socially anxious subjects showed no bias in this condition. Controls showed an ipsilateral delay activity after being cued to attend to one hemifield. Overall, this study supports early and persistent attentional bias for social threat in socially anxious individuals. Furthermore, self-focus may disrupt these biases. These findings and supplementary data are discussed in light of cognitive models of social anxiety disorder, recent empirical findings, and treatment.