Literature DB >> 33360756

Post-capture processes contribute to statistical learning of distractor locations in visual search.

Marian Sauter1, Nina M Hanning2, Heinrich R Liesefeld2, Hermann J Müller2.   

Abstract

People can learn to ignore salient distractors that occur frequently at particular locations, making them interfere less with task performance. This effect has been attributed to learnt suppression of the likely distractor locations at a pre-selective stage of attentional-priority computation. However, rather than distractors at frequent (vs rare) locations being just less likely to capture attention, attention may possibly also be disengaged faster from such distractors - a post-selective contribution to their reduced interference. Eye-movement studies confirm that learnt suppression, evidenced by a reduced rate of oculomotor capture by distractors at frequent locations, is a major factor, whereas the evidence is mixed with regard to a role of rapid disengagement However, methodological choices in these studies limited conclusions as to the contribution of a post-capture effect. Using an adjusted design, here we positively establish the rapid-disengagement effect, while corroborating the oculomotor-capture effect. Moreover, we examine distractor-location learning effects not only for distractors defined in a different visual dimension to the search target, but also for distractors defined within the same dimension, which are known to cause particularly strong interference and probability-cueing effects. Here, we show that both oculomotor-capture and disengagement dynamics contribute to this pattern. Additionally, on distractor-absent trials, the slowed responses to targets at frequent distractor locations-that we observe only in same-, but not different-, dimension conditions-arise pre-selectively, in prolonged latencies of the very first saccade. This supports the idea that learnt suppression is implemented at a different level of priority computation with same-versus different-dimension distractors.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Distractor rejection; Probability cueing; Statistical learning; Visual search

Year:  2020        PMID: 33360756     DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.11.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cortex        ISSN: 0010-9452            Impact factor:   4.027


  9 in total

1.  Learned distractor rejection persists across target search in a different dimension.

Authors:  Brad T Stilwell; Shaun P Vecera
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-08-31       Impact factor: 2.157

2.  Statistical distractor learning modulates perceptual sensitivity.

Authors:  Dirk van Moorselaar; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Revealing Whole-Brain Causality Networks During Guided Visual Searching.

Authors:  Christian M Kiefer; Junji Ito; Ralph Weidner; Frank Boers; N Jon Shah; Sonja Grün; Jürgen Dammers
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 4.677

4.  Error cancellation.

Authors:  Anna Foerster; Marco Steinhauser; Katharina A Schwarz; Wilfried Kunde; Roland Pfister
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 2.963

5.  Eye movements reveal the contributions of early and late processes of enhancement and suppression to the guidance of visual search.

Authors:  Zachary Hamblin-Frohman; Seah Chang; Howard Egeth; Stefanie I Becker
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 2.157

6.  Statistical learning in visual search reflects distractor rarity, not only attentional suppression.

Authors:  Dirk Kerzel; Chiara Balbiani; Sarah Rosa; Stanislas Huynh Cong
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2022-04-20

7.  Statistical learning of target selection and distractor suppression shape attentional priority according to different timeframes.

Authors:  Valeria Di Caro; Chiara Della Libera
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Eye and hand movements disrupt attentional control.

Authors:  Nina Maria Hanning; Luca Wollenberg; Donatas Jonikaitis; Heiner Deubel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Acquisition and Use of 'Priors' in Autism: Typical in Deciding Where to Look, Atypical in Deciding What Is There.

Authors:  Hermann J Müller; Christine M Falter-Wagner; Fredrik Allenmark; Zhuanghua Shi; Rasmus L Pistorius; Laura A Theisinger; Nikolaos Koutsouleris; Peter Falkai
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2020-12-29
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.