Literature DB >> 26190076

Dissociable effects of salience on attention and goal-directed action.

Jeff Moher1, Brian A Anderson2, Joo-Hyun Song3.   

Abstract

Everyday behavior frequently involves encounters with multiple objects that compete for selection. For example, driving a car requires constant shifts of attention between oncoming traffic, rearview mirrors, and traffic signs and signals, among other objects. Behavioral goals often drive this selection process [1, 2]; however, they are not the sole determinant of selection. Physically salient objects, such as flashing, brightly colored hazard signs, or objects that are salient by virtue of learned associations with reward, such as pictures of food on a billboard, often capture attention regardless of the individual's goals [3-6]. It is typically thought that strongly salient distractor objects capture more attention and are more disruptive than weakly salient distractors [7, 8]. Counterintuitively, though, we found that this is true for perception, but not for goal-directed action. In a visually guided reaching task [9-11], we required participants to reach to a shape-defined target while trying to ignore salient distractors. We observed that strongly salient distractors produced less disruption in goal-directed action than weakly salient distractors. Thus, a strongly salient distractor triggers suppression during goal-directed action, resulting in enhanced efficiency and accuracy of target selection relative to when weakly salient distractors are present. In contrast, in a task requiring no goal-directed action, we found greater attentional interference from strongly salient distractors. Thus, while highly salient stimuli interfere strongly with perceptual processing, increased physical salience or associated value attenuates action-related interference.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26190076      PMCID: PMC4526432          DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.06.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  41 in total

1.  Attentional capture by abrupt onsets and feature singletons produces inhibitory surrounds.

Authors:  J R Mounts
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2000-10

2.  Color coding in a visual search task.

Authors:  B F GREEN; L K ANDERSON
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1956-01

Review 3.  Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection.

Authors:  Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2010-05-26

4.  Target selection in visual search as revealed by movement trajectories.

Authors:  Joo-Hyun Song; Ken Nakayama
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-02-11       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Salient stimuli capture attention and action.

Authors:  Dirk Kerzel; Josef Schönhammer
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Actions modulate attentional capture.

Authors:  Timothy N Welsh; Jay Pratt
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.143

7.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

8.  Valuable Orientations Capture Attention.

Authors:  Patryk A Laurent; Michelle G Hall; Brian A Anderson; Steven Yantis
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2015-01-01

9.  Selective attention and priming: inhibitory and facilitatory effects of ignored primes.

Authors:  S P Tipper; M Cranston
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  1985-11

Review 10.  Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy.

Authors:  Edward Awh; Artem V Belopolsky; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 20.229

View more
  18 in total

1.  Goal-directed action is automatically biased towards looming motion.

Authors:  Jeff Moher; Jonathan Sit; Joo-Hyun Song
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2014-08-24       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Value-based attentional capture affects multi-alternative decision making.

Authors:  Sebastian Gluth; Mikhail S Spektor; Jörg Rieskamp
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 8.140

3.  Mechanisms of habitual approach: Failure to suppress irrelevant responses evoked by previously reward-associated stimuli.

Authors:  Brian A Anderson; Charles L Folk; Rebecca Garrison; Leeland Rogers
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2016-04-07

Review 4.  Abandoning and modifying one action plan for alternatives.

Authors:  Joo-Hyun Song
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  The visual properties of proximal and remote distractors differentially influence reaching planning times: evidence from pro- and antipointing tasks.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Jesse C DeSimone
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Individual differences in sustained attention are associated with cortical thickness.

Authors:  Alex Mitko; David Rothlein; Victoria Poole; Meghan Robinson; Regina McGlinchey; Joseph DeGutis; David Salat; Michael Esterman
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-04-13       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  On the value-dependence of value-driven attentional capture.

Authors:  Brian A Anderson; Madeline Halpern
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 8.  What is abnormal about addiction-related attentional biases?

Authors:  Brian A Anderson
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 4.492

9.  Reach tracking reveals dissociable processes underlying cognitive control.

Authors:  Christopher D Erb; Jeff Moher; David M Sobel; Joo-Hyun Song
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2016-04-02

10.  The necessity to choose causes reward-related anticipatory biasing: Parieto-occipital alpha-band oscillations reveal suppression of low-value targets.

Authors:  Anna Heuer; Christian Wolf; Alexander C Schütz; Anna Schubö
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.