Literature DB >> 29035072

Distinguishing among potential mechanisms of singleton suppression.

Nicholas Gaspelin1, Steven J Luck1.   

Abstract

Previous research has revealed that people can suppress salient stimuli that might otherwise capture visual attention. The present study tests between 3 possible mechanisms of visual suppression. According to first-order feature suppression models, items are suppressed on the basis of simple feature values. According to second-order feature suppression models, items are suppressed on the basis of local discontinuities within a given feature dimension. According to global-salience suppression models, items are suppressed on the basis of their dimension-independent salience levels. The current study distinguished among these models by varying the predictability of the singleton color value. If items are suppressed by virtue of salience alone, then it should not matter whether the singleton color is predictable. However, evidence from probe processing and eye movements indicated that suppression is possible only when the color values are predictable. Moreover, the ability to suppress salient items developed gradually as participants gained experience with the feature that defined the salient distractor. These results are consistent with first-order feature suppression models, and are inconsistent with the other models of suppression. In other words, people primarily suppress salient distractors on the basis of their simple features and not on the basis of salience per se. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29035072      PMCID: PMC5897145          DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000484

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  65 in total

1.  Made you blink! Contingent attentional capture produces a spatial blink.

Authors:  Charles L Folk; Andrew B Leber; Howard E Egeth
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2002-07

2.  Behavioral performance follows the time course of neural facilitation and suppression during cued shifts of feature-selective attention.

Authors:  S K Andersen; M M Müller
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-07-19       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Contingent attentional capture by top-down control settings: converging evidence from event-related potentials.

Authors:  Mei-Ching Lien; Eric Ruthruff; Zachary Goodin; Roger W Remington
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 4.  Motion: the long and short of it.

Authors:  P Cavanagh; G Mather
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1989

5.  Visual search and stimulus similarity.

Authors:  J Duncan; G W Humphreys
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture.

Authors:  W F Bacon; H E Egeth
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1994-05

7.  Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry.

Authors:  C Koch; S Ullman
Journal:  Hum Neurobiol       Date:  1985

8.  Flexible feature-based inhibition in visual search mediates magnified impairments of selection: evidence from carry-over effects under dynamic preview-search conditions.

Authors:  Lucy S Andrews; Derrick G Watson; Glyn W Humphreys; Jason J Braithwaite
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Susceptible to distraction: children lack top-down control over spatial attention capture.

Authors:  Nicholas Gaspelin; Tessa Margett-Jordan; Eric Ruthruff
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-04

10.  Search goal tunes visual features optimally.

Authors:  Vidhya Navalpakkam; Laurent Itti
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 17.173

View more
  38 in total

1.  A finer-grained search reveals no evidence of the attentional capture by to-be-ignored features.

Authors:  Hansol Rheem; Yang Seok Cho
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Gaze dynamics of feature-based distractor inhibition under prior-knowledge and expectations.

Authors:  Wen Wen; Yangming Zhang; Sheng Li
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Attentional capture alters feature perception.

Authors:  Jiageng Chen; Andrew B Leber; Julie D Golomb
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Selection history is relative.

Authors:  Ming-Ray Liao; Mark K Britton; Brian A Anderson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2020-07-11       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Can salient stimuli really be suppressed?

Authors:  Seah Chang; Howard E Egeth
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  The guidance of attention by templates for rejection during visual search.

Authors:  Nick Berggren; Martin Eimer
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Neural Evidence for the Contribution of Active Suppression During Working Memory Filtering.

Authors:  Tobias Feldmann-Wüstefeld; Edward K Vogel
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 5.357

Review 8.  Inhibition as a potential resolution to the attentional capture debate.

Authors:  Nicholas Gaspelin; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychol       Date:  2018-10-29

9.  Oculomotor Inhibition of Salient Distractors: Voluntary Inhibition Cannot Override Selection History.

Authors:  Nicholas Gaspelin; John M Gaspar; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2019-04-09

10.  Combined Electrophysiological and Behavioral Evidence for the Suppression of Salient Distractors.

Authors:  Nicholas Gaspelin; Steven J Luck
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 3.225

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.