An electrophysiological study of attention capture by salience: Does rarity enable capture?

The problem of latent attentional capture: Easy visual search conceals capture by task-irrelevant abrupt onsets.

“…The irrelevant feature paradigm discourages displaywide sets for onsets by using premasks, yet often produces onset capture (e.g., Franconeri & Simons, 2003; Jonides & Yantis, 1988; Yantis & Jonides, 1984). Studies using the spatial cuing paradigm typically encourage a displaywide set for onsets by using no premasks yet produce no evidence of capture by onsets (Folk et al, 1992; Lien et al, 2008; Lien, Ruthruff, & Johnston, 2010; Noesen et al, 2014). In other words, the displaywide account predicts a pattern of capture that is, if anything, opposite to that actually observed in the literature.…”

Distinct roles of theta and alpha oscillations in the involuntary capture of goal-directed attention

“…The N2pc time window of interest was taken from 160-260ms, which is similar to that used to examine the N2pc in other studies using this type of paradigm (e.g., Noesen et al 2014). Statistical analyses were performed by comparing the mean amplitude over the analysis period for the ipsilateral and contralateral ROIs for each condition.…”

“…Previous electroencephalography (EEG) studies of attentional guidance and capture have typically focused on a negativity in the event-related potential (ERP) over occipito-parietal electrodes, at around 200ms after the onset of a stimulus -the N2pc (Luck & Hillyard 1994). This component is observed following the presentation of lateralized stimuli possessing a goal-relevant feature, but is attenuated if the stimulus features are not task relevant (e.g., Eimer & Kiss 2008;Lien et al 2008;Noesen et al 2014). This link to goal relevance has led many authors to conclude that the N2pc reflects the allocation of goal-directed attention (e.g., Eimer, 1996;Eimer & Grubert, 2014;Hickey et al 2009).…”

Attentional capture in driving displays

“…The rarity effect is consistent with findings from previous studies (e.g., Forster & Lavie, ; Müller, Geyer, Zehetleitner, & Krummenacher, ; Neo & Chua, ; Folk & Remington, ; but see also Noosen et al ., ). According to Müller et al .…”

“…Consistent with this prediction, previous research by Forster and Lavie () showed greater attention capture effects for distractors occurring infrequently, on 10% of the trials, compared to distractors occurring more frequently, on 50% of the trials (see also Folk & Remington, ; Horstmann, ; Johnston, Ruthruff, & Lien, ). But note that none of these studies used naturalistic scenes and other basic studies have failed to find an effect of rarity (e.g., Noosen, Lien, & Ruthruff, ). The issue is important because salient distracting stimuli might be relatively rare in real‐world conditions, rather than occurring every few seconds (as in most traditional experiments).…”