Explore the vast range of titles available.

Researchers have long debated whether attentional capture is purely stimulus driven or purely goal driven. In the current study, we tested a hybrid account, called the signal-suppression hypothesis, which posits that stimuli automatically produce a bottom-up salience signal, but that this signal can be suppressed via top-down control processes. To test this account, we used a new capture-probe paradigm in which participants searched for a target shape while ignoring an irrelevant color singleton. On occasional probe trials, letters were briefly presented inside the search shapes, and participants attempted to report these letters. Under conditions that promoted capture by the irrelevant singleton, accuracy was greater for the letter inside the singleton distractor than for letters inside nonsingleton distractors. However, when the conditions were changed to avoid capture by the singleton, accuracy for the letter inside the irrelevant singleton was reduced below the level observed for letters inside nonsingleton distractors, an indication of active suppression of processing at the singleton location.

For more than 2 decades, researchers have debated the nature of cognitive control in the guidance of visual attention. Stimulus-driven theories claim that salient stimuli automatically capture attention, whereas goal-driven theories propose that an individual’s attentional control settings determine whether salient stimuli capture attention. In the current study, we tested a hybrid account called the signal suppression hypothesis, which claims that all stimuli automatically generate a salience signal but that this signal can be actively suppressed by top-down attentional mechanisms. Previous behavioral and electrophysiological research has shown that participants can suppress covert shifts of attention to salient-but-irrelevant color singletons. In this study, we used eye-tracking methods to determine whether participants can also suppress overt shifts of attention to irrelevant singletons. We found that under conditions that promote active suppression of the irrelevant singletons, overt attention was less likely to be directed toward the salient distractors than toward nonsalient distractors. This result provides direct evidence that people can suppress salient-but-irrelevant singletons below baseline levels.

Many studies have reported that spatial attention can be involuntarily captured by salient stimuli such as abrupt onsets. These involuntary shifts are often assumed to have the same effects on feature extraction as voluntary shifts: there are two different ways of moving the same attentional mechanism. According to this unified model of spatial attention, all shifts of attention should enhance the identification of attended objects. We directly tested this assumption using compatibility effects in a series of spatial cueing experiments. Participants searched a display and indicated whether the target number was greater or less than five. The salient precues were also numbers, allowing measurement of compatibility effects between the precue and the target. Precues that reliably predicted the target location produced compatibility effects (e.g., the precue “1” facilitated responding to the target “one”), indicating enhanced identification of the precue. Compatibility effects were also found for precues that were nonpredictive but had the target-finding feature (i.e., contingent capture). Critically, however, four separate experiments failed to find compatibility effects for salient abrupt onsets that were neither predictive nor task-relevant. This is surprising given that these same precues produced enormous cue validity effects (up to 186 ms), suggesting salience-based attention capture. Our findings argue against the unified model: salience-based attention capture recruits different attentional mechanisms than contingent capture or voluntary shifts in attention.

Certain stimuli have the power to rapidly and involuntarily capture spatial attention against our will. The present study investigated whether such stimuli capture spatial attention even when they appear in ignored regions of visual space. In other words, which force is more powerful: attentional capture or spatial filtering? Participants performed a spatial cuing task, searching for a letter target defined by color (e.g., green) and then reporting that letter’s identity. Two of the four search locations were always irrelevant. Unlike many previous experiments, participants were forced to ignore these locations because they always contained a target-colored distractor letter. Experiment 1 assessed capture by a salient-but-irrelevant abrupt onset cue appearing 150 ms before the search display. One might expect onset cues to capture attention even at ignored locations given that the main function of capture, presumably, is to rapidly alert observers to unexpected yet potentially important stimuli. However, they did not. Experiment 2 replicated this result with a different neutral baseline condition. Experiment 3 replicated the absence of capture effects at ignored locations with an even more potent stimulus: a relevant cue possessing the target color. We propose that people are effectively immune to attentional capture by objects in ignored locations – spatial filtering dominates attentional capture.

The signal suppression account of attentional capture was proposed in 2010 to resolve a longstanding debate between bottom-up and top-down theories of capture by proposing that a top-down suppressive mechanism can eliminate bottom-up capture of attention. Since its original proposal, the signal suppression account has garnered much support and has also been challenged in important ways. The current article reviews how the signal suppression account has survived several challenges but has also been updated to account for new findings. The primary updates are that (a) suppression operates on specific feature values and locations rather than squashing a generalized “attend-to-me” signal produced by salient distractors, and (b) suppression reflects implicit learning that is triggered when attention is captured. This revised hypothesis predicts that initial instances of attentional capture are needed to drive the implicit learning processes that lead to distractor suppression. Because high-salience distractors are more likely to capture attention than low-salience distractors prior to this implicit learning process, the revised hypothesis predicts that it will be easier to learn to suppress high-salience distractors than low-salience distractors. It also predicts that explicit attempts to override capture may (ironically) lead to increased rather than decreased distraction.

There is considerable evidence that salient items can be suppressed in order to prevent attentional capture. However, this evidence has relied almost exclusively on paradigms using color singletons as salient distractors. It is therefore unclear whether other kinds of salient stimuli, such as abrupt onsets, can also be suppressed. Using an additional singleton paradigm optimized for detecting oculomotor suppression, we directly compared color singletons with abrupt onsets. Participants searched for a target shape (e.g., green diamond) and attempted to ignore salient distractors that were either abrupt onsets or color singletons. First eye movements were used to assess whether salient distractors captured attention or were instead suppressed. Initial experiments using a type of abrupt onset from classic attentional capture studies (four white dots) revealed that abrupt onsets strongly captured attention whereas color singletons were suppressed. After controlling for important differences between the onsets and color singletons – such as luminance and color – abrupt-onset capture was reduced but not eliminated. We ultimately conclude that abrupt onsets are not suppressed like color singletons.

Attention must be carefully controlled to avoid distraction by salient stimuli. The signal suppression hypothesis proposes that salient stimuli can be proactively suppressed to prevent distraction. Although this hypothesis has garnered much support, most previous studies have used one class of salient distractors: color singletons. It therefore remains unclear whether other kinds of salient distractors can also be suppressed. The current study directly compared suppression of a variety of salient stimuli using an attentional capture task that was adapted for eye tracking. The working hypothesis was that static salient stimuli (e.g., color singletons) would be easier to suppress than dynamic salient stimuli (e.g., motion singletons). The results showed that participants could ignore a wide variety of salient distractors. Importantly, suppression was weaker and slower to develop for dynamic salient stimuli than static salient stimuli. A final experiment revealed that adding a static salient feature to a dynamic motion distractor greatly improved suppression. Altogether, the results suggest that an underlying inhibitory process is applied to all kinds of salient distractors, but that suppression is more readily applied to static features than dynamic features.

Researchers have long debated whether salient distractors have the power to automatically capture attention. Recent research has suggested a potential resolution, called the signal suppression hypothesis , whereby salient distractors produce a bottom-up salience signal, but can be suppressed to prevent visual distraction. This account, however, has been criticized on the grounds that previous studies may have used distractors that were only weakly salient. This claim has been difficult to empirically test because there are currently no well-established measures of salience. The current study addresses this by introducing a psychophysical technique to measure salience. First, we generated displays that aimed to manipulate the salience of two color singletons via color contrast. We then verified that this manipulation was successful using a psychophysical technique to determine the minimum exposure duration required to detect each color singleton. The key finding was that high-contrast singletons were detected at briefer exposure thresholds than low-contrast singletons, suggesting that high-contrast singletons were more salient. Next, we evaluated the participants’ ability to ignore these singletons in a task in which they were task irrelevant. The results showed that, if anything, high-salience singletons were more strongly suppressed than low-salience singletons. These results generally support the signal suppression hypothesis and refute claims that highly salient singletons cannot be ignored.

Visual attention can sometimes be involuntarily captured by salient stimuli, and this may lead to impaired performance in a variety of real-world tasks. If observers were aware that their attention was being captured, they might be able to exert control and avoid subsequent distraction. However, it is unknown whether observers can detect attention capture when it occurs. In the current study, participants searched for a target shape and attempted to ignore a salient color distractor. On a subset of trials, participants then immediately classified whether the salient distractor captured their attention (“capture” vs. “no capture”). Participants were slower and less accurate at detecting the target on trials on which they reported “capture” than “no capture.” Follow-up experiments revealed that participants specifically detected covert shifts of attention to the salient item. Altogether, these results indicate that observers can have immediate awareness of visual distraction, at least under certain circumstances.

Considerable evidence has indicated that adults can exert top-down control to avoid distraction by salient-but-irrelevant stimuli. However, relatively little research has explored how this ability develops across the lifespan. In the present study, we therefore assessed how well children can control the capture of spatial attention. Children ( M age = 4.2 years) and adults ( M age = 21.5 years) searched for target “spaceships” of a specific color while trying to ignore salient precues that either matched or mismatched the target spaceship color. The results demonstrated that children are, in fact, more vulnerable to capture by irrelevant stimuli than are adults, even after accounting for children’s overall cognitive slowing.