Attentional capture by singletons is contingent on top-down control settings: Evidence from electrophysiological measures

Lien, Mei-Ching; Ruthruff, Eric; Cornett, Logan

doi:10.1080/13506280903000040

Cited by 48 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with this explanation, false alarm rates were higher in the color-onset condition than in the onset-color condition, suggesting that the similarity between cue context and target was higher. In line with the context-selection hypothesis, other studies also reported cueing costs when contextual cues and targets had the same color (Harris, Remington, & Becker, 2013;Lien, Ruthruff, & Cornett, 2010;Schönhammer, Grubert, Kerzel, & Becker, 2016). Second, the disengagement hypothesis can account for the cueing costs in the color-onset condition by assuming that the color cues caused attentional capture, rapid disengagement, and spatially specific inhibition at the time the target appeared.…”

Section: Cueing Costs In the Color-onset Conditionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Detection costs and contingent attentional capture

Schönhammer

Kerzel

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peripheral cues reduce reaction times (RTs) to targets at the cued location with short cue-target SOAs (cueing benefits) but increase RTs at long SOAs (cueing costs or inhibition of return). In detection tasks, cueing costs occur at shorter SOAs and are larger compared with identification tasks. To account for effects of task, detection cost theory claims that the integration of cue and target into an object file makes it more difficult to detect the target as a new event, which is the principal task-requirement in detection tasks. The integration of cue and target is expected to increase when cue and target are similar. We provided evidence for detection cost theory in the modified spatial cueing paradigm. Two types of cues (onset, color) were paired with two types of targets (onset, color) in separate blocks of trials. In the identification task, we found cueing benefits with matching (i.e., similar) cue-target pairs (onset-onset, color-color) and no cueing effects with nonmatching cue-target pairs (onset-color, color-onset), which replicates previous work. In the detection task, cueing effects with matching cues were reduced and even turned into cueing costs for onset cues with onset targets, suggesting that cue-target integration made it more difficult to detect targets at the cued location as new events. In contrast, the results for nonmatching cue-target pairs were not affected by task. Furthermore, the pattern of false alarms in the detection task provides a measure of similarity that may explain the size of cueing benefits and costs.

show abstract

Section: Cueing Costs In the Color-onset Conditionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Detection costs and contingent attentional capture

Schönhammer

Kerzel

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Any object displayed in one visual field, as in the peripheral location condition, will produce different brain potentials between the left and right hemifields, in addition to the response code activated by the object itself. The lateralized brain activity could simply reflect differences in stimulus energy between the left and right visual fields in the display (for further discussion, see Lien, Ruthruff, & Cornett, 2010;Lien, Ruthruff, Goodin, & Remington, 2008;Luck, 2005). Furthermore, attention allocation to a lateralized object would also elicit an increased negativity over the posterior, occipital, and temporal scalp contralateral to an attended stimulus, starting roughly 170 ms after stimulus onset (e.g., Eimer, 1996;Luck, Heinze, Mangun, & Hillyard, 1990).…”

Section: P1 and N1mentioning

confidence: 99%

An electrophysiological study of the object-based correspondence effect: Is the effect triggered by an intended grasping action?

Lien

Jardin

Proctor

2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined Goslin, Dixon, Fischer, Cangelosi, and Ellis's (Psychological Science 23:152-157, 2012) claim that the object-based correspondence effect (i.e., faster keypress responses when the orientation of an object's graspable part corresponds with the response location than when it does not) is the result of object-based attention (vision-action binding). In Experiment 1, participants determined the category of a centrally located object (kitchen utensil vs. tool), as in Goslin et al.'s study. The handle orientation (left vs. right) did or did not correspond with the response location (left vs. right). We found no correspondence effect on the response times (RTs) for either category. The effect was also not evident in the P1 and N1 components of the event-related potentials, which are thought to reflect the allocation of early visual attention. This finding was replicated in Experiment 2 for centrally located objects, even when the object was presented 45 times (33 more times than in Exp. 1). Critically, the correspondence effects on RTs, P1s, and N1s emerged only when the object was presented peripherally, so that the object handle was clearly located to the left or right of fixation. Experiment 3 provided further evidence that the effect was observed only for the base-centered objects, in which the handle was clearly positioned to the left or right of center. These findings contradict those of Goslin et al. and provide no evidence that an intended grasping action modulates visual attention. Instead, the findings support the spatial-coding account of the object-based correspondence effect.

show abstract

“…For example, Lien, Ruthruff, Goodin, and Remington (2008) had observers search for a target letter of a certain colour within an array preceded by multiple spatial cues defined either by the target colour, a different colour, or an onset. Target-coloured cues elicited a cue validity effect on target RTs, but the other cue types did not, consistent with previous behavioural findings (e.g., Folk et al, 1992 observed using a variety of target-defining feature dimensions (including colour, orientation, size, and motion direction), and in the context of spatial cueing paradigms Eimer, Kiss, Press, & Sauter, 2009;Lien, Ruthruff, & Cornett, 2010), additional singleton paradigms (Kiss, Jolicoeur, Dell'acqua, & Eimer, 2008), other visual search paradigms (Girelli & Luck, 1997;Rodríguez Holguín, Doallo, Vizoso, & Cadaveira, 2009), and RSVP paradigms (Leblanc, Prime, & Jolicoeur, 2008). Overall, these studies indicate that an observer's feature-based search settings can modulate not only behavioural but also electrophysiological indices of attentional capture.…”

Section: Electrophysiological Studies Of Attentional Capture and Featsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…As Eimer and Kiss (2010b) point out, however, Bacon and Egeth's (1984) argument that these singletons may actually have been task-relevant if participants were adopting a singleton detection mode of search applies to these results too. Eimer and Kiss (2010b) supported this argument by demonstrating a reduced N2pc associated with taskirrelevant distractors when task instructions were manipulated to discourage a singleton detection mode (see also Eimer, Kiss, & Nicholas, 2011;Lien, Ruthruff, & Cornett, 2010). were recorded while observers searched for a form singleton (a diamond amongst circles).…”

Section: Electrophysiological Studies Of Attentional Capture and Featmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…As discussed in Chapter 1, involuntary attentional capture is influenced by both task set (what an observer is looking for; Folk et al, 1992;Lien, Ruthruff, & Cornett, 2010) and WM load (Lavie & De Fockert, 2005;Lavie et al, 2004). Numerous theoretical accounts suggest that selective attention and WM utilise, and compete for, similar populations of prefrontal neural resources (e.g., J. R. Anderson et al, 1997;Awh et al, 2006;Baddeley, 2003;Bundesen, 1990;Chun, 2011;Conway et al, 2001;Desimone & Duncan, 1995;Duncan & Humphreys, 1989;Lavie et al, 2004;Logan & Gordon, 2001; E. K. Miller & Cohen, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Top-down and bottom-up processes in vision

Jacoby¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To help us efficiently navigate our information-rich environment, the human brain has developed a set of cognitive mechanisms aimed at quickly identifying information that is likely to be behaviourally relevant, collectively referred to as selective attention. Attentional resources can be directed voluntarily, as occurs when we shift attention from one word to the next while reading; or involuntarily, such as when attention is captured by someone unexpectedly entering the room (Yantis, 2000). These two modes of attention are not as independent and clearly distinguishable as once thought (Gilbert & Li, 2013). For example, the extent to which a stimulus involuntarily captures attention is influenced by whether it possesses features relevant to an observer's current task (the contingent capture hypothesis; Folk, . Attentional capture is also affected by the level of working memory (WM) load an observer is under (Lavie, Hirst, Viding, & De Fockert, 2004), and by an observer's WM capacity (Vogel, McCollough, & Machizawa, 2005).It has been suggested that maintaining top-down biases on attentional capture may require -and compete for -similar neural resources as WM (e.g., Lavie et al., 2004). If so, top-down influences on attentional capture should be reduced (a) when an observer is under high WM load, and (b) in individuals with a low WM capacity. In this thesis these possibilities were tested in a series of seven experiments in which human observers monitored visual stimulus streams for targets defined by a particular feature value (e.g., red). While observers performed these tasks, I took behavioural and electrophysiological measures of attentional capture by distracting visual stimuli that either possessed or did not possess the target feature value. I then investigated whether taxing WM reduces contingent capture. An n-back task that required information-updating eliminated the influence of task set on the distractor-evoked N2pc, suggesting that taxing WM compromised top-down biases on early visual processing. There was no such effect on a behavioural measure of attentional capture, however, possibly because taxing WM also compromised the transfer of information from early visual cortex to later stages of processing. A iii digit rehearsal task that required only information maintenance did not change the effect of task set on either the N2pc or behaviour. This pattern of results suggests that contingent capture is only reduced by WM load manipulations that place demands on the central executive component of WM (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974).Next I tested whether high WM load can reduce the effect of task set on even earlier stages of processing than the N2pc, specifically by measuring the P1 component of the visual-evoked potential. Unexpectedly, I failed to replicate a previous finding of an effect of feature-based task set on the P1. Because I found no effect of task set on the P1, I was unable to test whether such an effect was reduced under high WM load.In a final experiment I examined whether individual dif...

show abstract

Attentional capture by singletons is contingent on top-down control settings: Evidence from electrophysiological measures

Cited by 48 publications

References 54 publications

Detection costs and contingent attentional capture

Detection costs and contingent attentional capture

An electrophysiological study of the object-based correspondence effect: Is the effect triggered by an intended grasping action?

Top-down and bottom-up processes in vision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About