An adaptive view of attentional control.

Abstract

Although humans can voluntarily direct their attention to particular stimuli, attention can at times be involuntarily allocated to stimuli and such attentional capture can result in unproductive distraction. A challenge to any comprehensive theory of attention is to explain how involuntary mechanisms of attentional control and their potential to produce distraction are ultimately reflective of an adaptation. Traditional arguments on this topic have appealed to a generalized cost-benefit accounting. Specifically, the cost of misallocating attention to the kinds of stimuli prioritized by involuntary mechanisms of attentional control over the long run is argued to be small in comparison with the potentially life-altering cost of failing to attend to such stimuli, which involuntary mechanisms of attentional control guard against. Our understanding of these mechanisms has undergone a revolution in recent years, findings from which point to a much more sophisticated adaptation that systematically maximizes benefits associated with automating the control of attention while minimizing unwanted distraction. In this review, I provide an updated model of the adaptive nature of involuntary mechanisms of attentional control, outlining concrete principles governing the management of specific costs and benefits. I conclude that distraction does not in general constitute a failure of attentional control but rather reflects the joint product of these adaptive principles.

Visual search as effortful work.

“…When a physically demanding target is easy to find, people are more likely to endure the added physical demands in exchange for easing the attentional burden of a visual search. Such a result is consistent with the function of attentional control as conceptualized by Anderson (2021).…”

“…Selectively processing task-relevant perceptual information while ignoring irrelevant information is a ubiquitous part of both everyday and laboratory tasks, but the cognitive demands associated with this requirement have scarcely been considered in the study of mental effort. Given that visual search relies on low-demand and potentially largely automatic attentional processes (see Anderson, 2018) and that attentional processes in visual search may be optimized to minimize the need for controlled and effortful processes (Anderson, 2021), there is reason to think that conducting a visual search might not tax mental effort in a meaningful way. Yet, there is considerable theory concerning what makes a visual search task more difficult from the standpoint of the efficiency of performance (e.g., Duncan & Humphreys, 1989; Huang & Pashler, 2005; Hulleman, 2010; Wolfe, 2020; Wolfe et al, 1989), which may be related to mental effort.…”

“…Do the demands of finding and extracting relevant perceptual information, such as those involved in visual search, meaningfully contribute to the cognitive effort required by a task? Unlike memory-demanding cognitive tasks, people often conduct a visual search with limited awareness of what they have looked at (e.g., processes in the attainment of a desired state (Anderson, 2021). Such findings and theories could be taken to suggest that the attentional demands of searching for and finding a task-relevant stimulus are negligible.…”

“…Unlike memory-demanding cognitive tasks, people often conduct a visual search with limited awareness of what they have looked at (e.g., Adams & Gaspelin, 2020, 2021; Anderson & Mrkonja, 2021; Chen & Wyble, 2015; Horowitz & Wolfe, 1998; Theeuwes et al, 1998; Võ et al, 2016), maintaining a representation of the searched-for stimulus in active memory (Woodman et al, 2013) and engaging low-demand and potentially largely automatic attentional processes (see Anderson, 2018). Indeed, a number of involuntary, low-demand attentional processes support the selection of pertinent stimuli, which has been argued to reflect an adaptive attentional system that functions to minimize the need for controlled and effortful processes in the attainment of a desired state (Anderson, 2021). Such findings and theories could be taken to suggest that the attentional demands of searching for and finding a task-relevant stimulus are negligible.…”

When detecting a salient target makes search more effortful.

“…Thus, it is likely that the avoidance of singleton detection trials was at least partially driven by attempts to minimize errors or LEE, CLEMENT, AND ANDERSON 14 time on task. With that said, there is ample evidence that observers often choose not to search in a manner that would have maximized performance (e.g., Anderson, 2021;Anderson & Lee, 2023;Irons & Leber, 2016Lee et al, 2022;Nowakowska et al, 2017), and the time needed to complete the grip requirement in the present study (especially in Experiments 2 and 3 in which 100% of calibrated maximal effort would trigger a task switch) would have worked against millisecond-level timesavings on individual trials. The results of Experiment 4 clearly contradict the idea that singleton detection was in fact subjectively easier.…”