Distract yourself: prediction of salient distractors by own actions and external cues

Abstract

Distracting sensory events can capture attention, interfering with the performance of the task at hand. We asked: is our attention captured by such events if we cause them ourselves? To examine this, we employed a visual search task with an additional salient singleton distractor, where the distractor was predictable either by the participant’s own (motor) action or by an endogenous cue; accordingly, the task was designed to isolate the influence of motor and non-motor predictive processes. We found both types of prediction, cue- and action-based, to attenuate the interference of the distractor—which is at odds with the “attentional white bear” hypothesis, which states that prediction of distracting stimuli mandatorily directs attention towards them. Further, there was no difference between the two types of prediction. We suggest this pattern of results may be better explained by theories postulating general predictive mechanisms, such as the framework of predictive processing, as compared to accounts proposing a special role of action–effect prediction, such as theories based on optimal motor control. However, rather than permitting a definitive decision between competing theories, our study highlights a number of open questions, to be answered by these theories, with regard to how exogenous attention is influenced by predictions deriving from the environment versus our own actions.

Predictability of salient distractor increases top-down control in healthy younger and older adults

“…Moreover, the present findings are in line with previous reports that younger adults are able to reduce distractor interference and improve top-down control when conditions afford valid predictions about the location of an upcoming distractor (Awh et al, 2003;Chao, 2010;Havlíček et al, 2018;Ruff & Driver, 2006;Sauter et al, 2019Sauter et al, , 2018Wang & Theeuwes, 2018;Watson & Humphreys, 1997). Note, however, that Noonan et al (2016) have argued that top-down controlled distractor suppression is possible only when observers can make stable predictions, which is not the case with foreknowledge of the distractor location provided by trial-wise presented (i.e., with regard to the indicated location: flexible) cues.…”

“…However, younger adults can mitigate the detrimental effects of strong bottom-up signals by utilising prior information ('expectancies') about where an upcoming distractor is likely to occur. That is, they can improve top-down controlled weighting of stimuli, and thus reduce distractor interference, when they can make valid predictions about the (likely) location of an upcoming distractor based on spatial pre-cues (Awh, Matsukura, & Serences, 2003;Chao, 2010;Havlíček, Müller, & Wykowska, 2018;Noonan et al, 2016;Ruff & Driver, 2006;Watson & Humphreys, 1997) or based on statistical learning of the spatial distribution of distractors in within a search display (Goschy, Bakos, Müller, & Zehetleitner, 2014;Sauter, Liesefeld, & Müller, 2019;Sauter, Liesefeld, Zehetleitner, & Müller, 2018). For older adults who are affected by agerelated reductions in attentional capacity, a preserved ability to use predictive information about where distracting stimuli might appear would be of particular importance.…”

Learning to Expect the Predictable: The Role of Expectation in the Cognitive Control of Attention

“…The present findings are in contrast with studies (typically assessing response conflict) which indicate that expectation improves control (Braver et al, 2003;Bugg & Smallwood, 2016;Correa et al, 2008;Dreisbach et al, 2002;Havlíček et al, 2019;Liu & Yeung, 2020;Logan & Zbrodoff, 1982;Monsell et al, 2003). There are previous studies using response conflict tasks which have found evidence in favour of experience-based control (e.g.…”

“…Evidence of expectation-driven control is however not limited to tasks which induce response conflict. Using a task which induces perceptual conflict, Havlíček et al (2019) presented participants with a search array containing one task-relevant item (a square with a corner missing containing either a vertical or horizontal line) amidst identically coloured complete squares and one bright distractor square. Participants were then asked to report the orientation of the line within the target.…”

Continuous, Lateralized Auditory Stimulation Biases Visual Spatial Processing

“…However, we suggest this to be unlikely for two reasons. First, owing to the regularity and temporal predictability of the auditory input, at least for the conditions containing tone pips and digits, the individual sounds are arguably less salient and easier to ignore than are unpredictable, random-onset, brief auditory cues (Noyce and Sekuler, 2014;Havlíček et al, 2019). Second, we observed a similar, spatially specific visual processing bias in both the passive (Experiment 1) and active listening (Experiment 2) conditions.…”