Literature DB >> 35386017

Testing the underlying processes leading to learned distractor rejection: Learned oculomotor avoidance.

Brad T Stilwell1, Shaun P Vecera2.   

Abstract

Target templates stored in visual memory guide visual attention toward behaviorally relevant target objects. Visual attention also is guided away from nontarget distractors by longer-term learning, a phenomenon termed "learned distractor rejection." Template guidance and learned distractor rejection can occur simultaneously to further increase search efficiency. However, the underlying processes guiding learned distractor rejection are unknown. In two visual search experiments employing eye-tracking, we tested between two plausible processes: proactive versus reactive attentional control. Participants searched through two-color, spatially unsegregated displays. Participants could guide attention by both target templates and consistent nontarget distractors. We observed fewer distractor fixations (including the first eye movement) and shorter distractor dwell times. The data supported a single mechanism of learned distractor rejection, whereby observers adopted a learned, proactive attentional control setting to avoid distraction whenever possible. Further, when distraction occurred, observers rapidly recovered. We term this proactive mechanism "learned oculomotor avoidance." The current study informs theories of visual attention by demonstrating the underlying processes leading to learned distractor suppression during strong target guidance.
© 2022. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Distractor suppression; Learned distractor rejection; Visual attention; Visual search

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35386017     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-022-02483-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.157


  44 in total

1.  The architecture of interaction between visual working memory and visual attention.

Authors:  Brett Bahle; Valerie M Beck; Andrew Hollingworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2018-04-09       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

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

3.  The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework.

Authors:  Todd S Braver
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 20.229

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Simultaneous control of attention by multiple working memory representations.

Authors:  Valerie M Beck; Andrew Hollingworth; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-07-03

7.  Evidence for negative feature guidance in visual search is explained by spatial recoding.

Authors:  Valerie M Beck; Andrew Hollingworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-07-20       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Classic Visual Search Effects in an Additional Singleton Task: An Open Dataset.

Authors:  Kirsten C S Adam; Titiksha Patel; Nicole Rangan; John T Serences
Journal:  J Cogn       Date:  2021-07-28

Review 9.  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

10.  History Modulates Early Sensory Processing of Salient Distractors.

Authors:  Kirsten C S Adam; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 6.709

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.