Literature DB >> 35318583

No evidence for proactive suppression of explicitly cued distractor features.

Douglas A Addleman1, Viola S Störmer2.   

Abstract

Visual search benefits from advance knowledge of nontarget features. However, it is unknown whether these negatively cued features are suppressed in advance (proactively) or during search (reactively). To test this, we presented color cues varying from trial-to-trial that predicted target or nontarget colors. Experiment 1 (N = 96) showed that both target and nontarget cues speeded search. To test whether attention proactively modified cued feature representations, in Experiment 2 (N = 200), we interleaved color probe and search trials and had participants detect the color of a briefly presented ring that could either match the cued color or not. People detected positively cued colors better than other colors, whereas negatively cued colors were detected no better or worse than other colors. These results demonstrate that nontarget features are not suppressed proactively, and instead suggest that anticipated nontarget features are ignored via reactive mechanisms.
© 2022. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attention; Enhancement; Suppression; Visual features

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35318583     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-022-02071-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  13 in total

1.  Increased activity in human visual cortex during directed attention in the absence of visual stimulation.

Authors:  S Kastner; M A Pinsk; P De Weerd; R Desimone; L G Ungerleider
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 17.173

2.  Feature-based attention increases the selectivity of population responses in primate visual cortex.

Authors:  Julio C Martinez-Trujillo; Stefan Treue
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2004-05-04       Impact factor: 10.834

3.  Pre-target activity in visual cortex predicts behavioral performance on spatial and feature attention tasks.

Authors:  Barry Giesbrecht; Daniel H Weissman; Marty G Woldorff; George R Mangun
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2006-01-17       Impact factor: 3.252

4.  Oscillatory Mechanisms of Preparing for Visual Distraction.

Authors:  Ingmar E J de Vries; Ece Savran; Joram van Driel; Christian N L Olivers
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2019-08-16       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Perceptual consequences of feature-based attentional enhancement and suppression.

Authors:  Tiffany C Ho; Scott Brown; Newton A Abuyo; Eun-Hae J Ku; John T Serences
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Taming the White Bear: Initial Costs and Eventual Benefits of Distractor Inhibition.

Authors:  Corbin A Cunningham; Howard E Egeth
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2016-02-18

7.  Enhancement and Suppression Flexibly Guide Attention.

Authors:  Seah Chang; Howard E Egeth
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2019-11-06

8.  Whatever you do, don't look at the...: Evaluating guidance by an exclusionary attentional template.

Authors:  Valerie M Beck; Steven J Luck; Andrew Hollingworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Templates for rejection: configuring attention to ignore task-irrelevant features.

Authors:  Jason T Arita; Nancy B Carlisle; Geoffrey F Woodman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-04-02       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Distractor ignoring: strategies, learning, and passive filtering.

Authors:  Joy Geng; Bo-Yeong Won; Nancy Carlisle
Journal:  Curr Dir Psychol Sci       Date:  2019-09-16
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Ten simple rules to study distractor suppression.

Authors:  Malte Wöstmann; Viola S Störmer; Jonas Obleser; Douglas A Addleman; Søren K Andersen; Nicholas Gaspelin; Joy J Geng; Steven J Luck; MaryAnn P Noonan; Heleen A Slagter; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 10.885

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.