Changes in visual cortical processing attenuate singleton distraction during visual search

Abstract

The ability to suppress distractions is essential to successful completion of goal-directed behaviors. Several behavioral studies have recently provided strong evidence that learned suppression may be particularly efficient in reducing distractor interference. Expectations about a distractor's repeated location, color, or even presence is rapidly learned and used to attenuate interference. In this study, we use a visual search paradigm in which a color singleton, which is known to capture attention, occurs within blocks with high or low frequency. The behavioral results show reduced singleton interference during the high compared to the low frequency block (Won et al., 2019). The fMRI results provide evidence that the attenuation of distractor interference is supported by changes in singleton, target, and non-salient distractor representations within retinotopic visual cortex. These changes in visual cortex are accompanied by findings that singleton-present trials compared to non-singleton trials produce greater activation in bilateral parietal cortex, indicative of attentional capture, in low frequency, but not high frequency blocks. Together, these results suggest that the readout of saliency signals associated with an expected color singleton from visual cortex is suppressed, resulting in less competition for attentional priority in frontoparietal attentional control regions.

History modulates early sensory processing of salient distractors

“…For "non-target 1" (the item neighboring the target on the side opposite the distractor), there was an overall history related modulation (color constant > color variable, p = .016, η 2 p = .42) that did not interact with ROI (p = .76, η 2 p = .03). Similar general effects on non-target processing have been observed recently 51 and may reflect a bias of attention away from the distractor such that attention may 'overshoot' the target because of the reduction in signal at the distractor location. The effect of history on "non-target 1" responses likewise was similar though of borderline significance in the GLM analysis (color constant > color variable, p = .049, η p = .31).…”

“…Of course, these possibilities are not mutually exclusive. For example, distractor and target processing seem to be differentially affected by history [49][50][51][52] . Therefore, it may be that history-driven changes to priority are reflected in a combination of traditionally 'goal-driven' and 'stimulus-driven' neural signatures of priority.…”

Memory precision for salient distractors decreases with learned suppression

“…These results are consistent with a number of studies in the literature showing that distractor suppression improves with exposure (Awh, Matsukura, & Serences, 2003;Noonan et al, 2016;Turatto, Bonetti, Pascucci, & Chelazzi, 2018;Vatterott et al, 2018) and learning occurs rapidly (Vatterott et al, 2018;Vatterott & Vecera, 2012). While the specific mechanisms are still debated, it appears that learned suppression for distractor features operates in visual cortex, directly attenuating the attend-to-me signal and preventing attentional capture (Adam & Serences, 2020;van Moorselaar, Lampers, Cordesius, & Slagter, 2020;Won et al, 2020). Such results suggest that learned suppression attenuates the readout of visual information about the distractor.…”

“…These results lead to the prediction that the opposite should also be true: memory precision and awareness should decline as suppression improves. Such a result would be consistent with recent findings that reductions in distractor interference are related to mechanisms within visual cortex that prevent the "readout" of attentional priority signals to later stages of processing (Adam & Serences, 2020;Birman & Gardner, 2019;Won, Forloines, Zhou, & Geng, 2020).…”

Statistical learning of target selection and distractor suppression shape attentional priority according to different timeframes

“…The traces left in place during distractor filtering under these conditions are much more complex than those relative to their inhibition, and comprise a wealth of other types of processing, including a preliminary attentional selection based on their perceptual features 31 . Interestingly, recent studies have shown that in similar visual search tasks, if the perceptual features defining distractors are consistently used across trials (i.e., distractors appear more frequently in the same color or at the same location), the facilitation associated with their filtering is crucially linked with adaptations in the cortical activity of brain areas involved in visual processing as early as V1 59 , 60 . The reduced interference determined by these distractors might thus be justified by their impoverished low-level perceptual processing, which may be triggered by the detection of intertrial regularities in stimulus properties 60 .…”