Literature DB >> 36207666

Search mode, not the attentional window, determines the magnitude of attentional capture.

Dirk Kerzel1, Stanislas Huynh Cong2.   

Abstract

A salient color distractor is known to capture attention during search for a less salient shape target, but the mechanisms underlying attentional capture are debated. Theeuwes (2004, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 65-70) argued that attentional capture depends on the size of the attentional window. If the attentional window is large, search is efficient and attentional capture should be stronger because the distractor is more likely to be inside the window. Consistently, we found higher search efficiency and more attentional capture in singleton than in feature search. However, differences in attentional capture only occurred when singleton and feature search were performed by different groups of participants, but not when singleton and feature search occurred unpredictably in the same group of participants. This result contradicts the attentional window account because search efficiency was always higher in singleton than in feature search. Rather, the results support search mode theory, which claims that participants looked for the most salient stimulus in singleton search ("singleton detection mode"), which resulted in more capture by the salient color distractor. When search types varied unpredictably, it was impossible to apply a consistent search strategy, which eliminated the differences between singleton and feature search. Further, we manipulated search efficiency by target-nontarget similarity. With dissimilar nontargets, the target was salient and search efficiency was high. Therefore, the attentional window account predicts more capture. However, we found the opposite result in singleton search and no difference in feature search. Taken together, these observations are inconsistent with the attentional window account but support search mode theory.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attentional capture; Feature search; Search mode; Singleton search; Visual search

Year:  2022        PMID: 36207666     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-022-02582-4

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


  26 in total

1.  Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings.

Authors:  C L Folk; R W Remington; J C Johnston
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Local processes in preattentive feature detection.

Authors:  W F Bacon; H E Egeth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses.

Authors:  Franz Faul; Edgar Erdfelder; Axel Buchner; Albert-Georg Lang
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2009-11

4.  Active suppression of salient-but-irrelevant stimuli does not underlie resistance to visual interference.

Authors:  Caroline Barras; Dirk Kerzel
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2016-10-15       Impact factor: 3.251

5.  A meta-analysis of contingent-capture effects.

Authors:  Christian Büsel; Martin Voracek; Ulrich Ansorge
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2018-08-31

6.  Attentional capture during visual search is attenuated by target predictability: evidence from the N2pc, Pd, and topographic segmentation.

Authors:  Nicolas Burra; Dirk Kerzel
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 4.016

7.  Distinguishing among potential mechanisms of singleton suppression.

Authors:  Nicholas Gaspelin; Steven J Luck
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Standing out in a small crowd: The role of display size in attracting attention.

Authors:  Seah Chang; Ernst Niebur; Howard E Egeth
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2021-09-28

9.  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

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.