Literature DB >> 36229632

Distractor ignoring is as effective as target enhancement when incidentally learned but not when explicitly cued.

Douglas A Addleman1, Viola S Störmer2.   

Abstract

Explicit knowledge about upcoming target or distractor features can increase performance in tasks like visual search. However, explicit distractor cues generally result in smaller performance benefits than target cues, suggesting that suppressing irrelevant information is less effective than enhancing relevant information. Is this asymmetry a general principle of feature-based attention? Across four experiments (N = 75 each) we compared the efficiency of target selection and distractor ignoring through either incidental experience or explicit instructions. Participants searched for an orientation-defined target amidst seven distractors-three in the target color and four in another color. In Experiment 1, either targets (Exp. 1a) or distractors (Exp. 1b) were presented more often in a specific color than other possible search colors. Response times showed comparable benefits of learned attention towards (Exp. 1a) and away from (Exp. 1b) the frequent color, suggesting that learned target selection and distractor ignoring can be equally effective. In Experiment 2, participants completed a nearly identical task, only with explicit cues to the target (Exp. 2a) or distractor color (Exp. 2b), inducing voluntary attention. Both target and distractor cues were beneficial for search performance, but distractor cues much less so than target cues, consistent with previous results. Cross-experiment analyses verified that the relative inefficiency of distractor ignoring versus target selection is a unique characteristic of voluntary attention that is not shared by incidentally learned attention, pointing to dissociable mechanisms of voluntary and learned attention to support distractor ignoring.
© 2022. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Enhancement; Selection history; Suppression; Visual search; Voluntary attention

Year:  2022        PMID: 36229632     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-022-02588-y

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


  16 in total

1.  Interactions between visual working memory and selective attention.

Authors:  P E Downing
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2000-11

Review 2.  Getting rid of visual distractors: the why, when, how, and where.

Authors:  Leonardo Chelazzi; Francesco Marini; David Pascucci; Massimo Turatto
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychol       Date:  2019-02-14

3.  Rapid acquisition but slow extinction of an attentional bias in space.

Authors:  Yuhong V Jiang; Khena M Swallow; Gail M Rosenbaum; Chelsey Herzig
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-03-19       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  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

5.  Timing of expectance peak in simple reaction time situation.

Authors:  R Näätänen; V Muranen; A Merisalo
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1974-12

6.  Altering spatial priority maps via statistical learning of target selection and distractor filtering.

Authors:  Oscar Ferrante; Alessia Patacca; Valeria Di Caro; Chiara Della Libera; Elisa Santandrea; Leonardo Chelazzi
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2017-10-09       Impact factor: 4.027

7.  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

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

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

9.  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

Review 10.  Selective inhibition of distracting input.

Authors:  MaryAnn P Noonan; Ben M Crittenden; Ole Jensen; Mark G Stokes
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.