Displaywide visual features associated with a search display’s appearance can mediate attentional capture

Abstract

Whether or not the capture of visual attention is driven solely by the salience of an attention-capturing stimulus or mediated by top-down control has been a point of contention since Folk, Remington, and Johnston (1992) introduced their contingent involuntary orienting hypothesis, which states that the capture of attention by a salient stimulus depends on its relevance to a feature distinguishing the target from nontargets. Gibson and Kelsey (1998) extended Folk et al.'s (1992) hypothesis by demonstrating that features associated with the appearance of the target display also mediate capture. Although similar to Folk et al. (1992), Gibson and Kelsey's displaywide contingent orienting hypothesis makes it difficult to demonstrate stimulus-driven capture, because an observer must always use some perceptible feature as a signal of the target display's appearance; hence, such features could always be mediating capture. The present article reviews and applies the logic of Gibson and Kelsey's and Folk et al.'s (1992) hypotheses to experiments from the attentional capture literature, and assesses whether previously reported capture effects were mediated by top-down attentional control. It concludes that these capture effects were not stimulus-driven.

Enhancement of perceptual representations by endogenous attention biases competition in response selection

“…Our experimental design did not provide a definitive explanation for the generalized performance cost at +100 ms, but a likely reason is attentional capture by the central cue (Ansorge, Horstmann & Carbone, 2005;Belopolsky, Schreij & Theeuwes, 2010;Burnham, 2007;Eimer & Kiss, 2008;Eimer, Kiss, Press & Sauter, 2009;Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992;Gibson & Kelsey, 1998). We found that informative, Cuing benefited performance at a cue-target SOA of −1,000 ms, but impaired performance at a cue-target SOA of +100 ms. c Flanker benefits and costs at different target-flanker SOAs.…”

“…Contingent attentional capture occurs when the task-irrelevant stimulus contains task-defining features, as was the case with our flankers. It has been found that contingent attentional capture can easily override goal-directed attention (Ansorge et al, 2005;Belopolsky et al, 2010;Burnham, 2007;Eimer & Kiss, 2008;Eimer et al, 2009;Folk et al, 1992;Gibson & Kelsey, 1998). We suggest that flankers preceding the target capture attention, and this involuntary process is unchanged by endogenous cuing.…”

Using response time distributions to examine top-down influences on attentional capture

“…Much research has revealed an interaction between topdown settings and bottom-up signals on the control of attention (e.g., Anderson & Folk, 2010;Ansorge & Heumann, 2003;Folk & Remington, 1998Folk et al, 1992;Folk et al, 1994;Gibson & Kelsey, 1998; for reviews, see Burnham, 2007;Theeuwes, 2010). But according to the attentional disengagement account, all salient stimuli capture attention in a stimulus-driven manner.…”

Capturing attention is not that simple: Different mechanisms for stimulus-driven and contingent capture

“…The contingent capture hypothesis, on the contrary-that top-down control determines initial attentional selectionalso has accumulated support (Al-Aidroos, Harrison, & Pratt, 2010;Atchley, Kramer, & Hillstrom, 2000;Bacon & Egeth, 1994;Burnham, 2007;Chen & Mordkoff, 2007;Folk, Leber, & Egeth, 2002;Folk & Remington, 1998, 1999Folk et al, 1992;Folk et al, 1994;Gibson & Kelsey, 1998;Leber & Egeth, 2006;Liao & Yeh, 2011). In a series of studies, Folk and colleagues showed that in a search for a red letter among white letters, only a task-irrelevant red distractor (but not an onset distractor) captured attention (e.g., Folk & Remington, 1998, 1999Folk et al, 1992;Folk et al, 1994).…”