Inhibition in selective attention

Abstract

Our ability to focus on goal‐relevant aspects of the environment is critically dependent on our ability to ignore or inhibit distracting information. One perspective is that distractor inhibition is under similar voluntary control as attentional facilitation of target processing. However, a rapidly growing body of research shows that distractor inhibition often relies on prior experience with the distracting information or other mechanisms that need not rely on active representation in working memory. Yet, how and when these different forms of inhibition are neurally implemented remains largely unclear. Here, we review findings from recent behavioral and neuroimaging studies to address this outstanding question. We specifically explore how experience with distracting information may change the processing of that information in the context of current predictive processing views of perception: by modulating a distractor's representation already in anticipation of the distractor, or after integration of top‐down and bottom‐up sensory signals. We also outline directions for future research necessary to enhance our understanding of how the brain filters out distracting information.

A dual mechanism underlying retroactive shifts of auditory spatial attention: dissociating target- and distractor-related modulations of alpha lateralization

“…Finally, considering the broad consensus that there is a large overlap between attentional selection in the perceptual environment (i.e., external attention) and attentional selection within working memory (i.e., internal attention; see 46 – 48 for elaborate reviews considering both domains), the question emerges to what extent the mechanisms examined in the present study may be comparable to respective processes in the perceptual domain. Similar to the working memory literature, facilitative effects of attention are well-characterized and widely accepted in perception, whereas it remains a matter of debate to what extent inhibition acts as an active, top-down controlled mechanism that is independent from the former (reviewed by van Moorselaar et al 6 ). In fact, a number of studies have demonstrated that shifts of external 49 , 50 and internal attention 2 , 9 , 26 yield roughly comparable signatures of alpha-band modulations, suggesting the reliance on a common underlying control mechanism.…”

“…Thus, a lateralization of alpha power in response to a shift of attention towards a left-sided target can be likewise due to a contralateral (i.e., right-hemispheric) decrease in alpha power (reflecting target prioritization) or to an ipsilateral (i.e., left-hemispheric) increase in alpha power (reflecting distractor inhibition). Notably, the same debate and issues apply to the perceptual domain, that is, to the focusing of attention on relevant aspects of the external environment (for a review, see 6 ).…”

Top-down control of saccades requires inhibition of suddenly appearing stimuli

“…If a salient item is successfully inhibited as indexed by a P D component, then these items cause no preceding attention shift, which is reflected is the absence of a N2pc component (Gaspelin et al, 2015 ; Sawaki & Luck, 2010 ). This ERP pattern was taken as evidence that distractors can be proactively inhibited (for reviews, see Gaspelin & Luck, 2018 , 2019 ; van Moorselaar & Slagter, 2020 ). In contrast to that, in our paradigm, participants were not able to proactively inhibit being biased towards the suddenly appearing salient region, even when both the location of the intended saccade target and the salient location were known in advance (see Fig.…”

“…However, we consider it more likely that a response to the salient region has to be actively inhibited for two reasons. The first reason is the recent converging evidence that emphasizes the role of active inhibition to prevent attentional capture by salient stimuli (for reviews, see Gaspelin & Luck, 2018 , 2019 ; van Moorselaar & Slagter, 2020 ) . The second reason is the observed pattern in our Experiment 3 (cued onset): In both conditions, saccade responses initiated before target onset were reliably aimed at the center of the low-salient (rewarded) region.…”

Gaze dynamics of feature-based distractor inhibition under the prior-knowledge and expectation

“…Divergent findings have been reported regarding whether distractor cues can accelerate search efficiency (Arita, Carlisle, & Woodman, 2012;Beck & Hollingworth, 2015;Becker, Hemsteger, & Peltier, 2015;Olivers, 2009;Soto, Heinke, Humphreys, & Blanco, 2005;Geoffrey F Woodman & Luck, 2007). Among the studies that showed behavioral promotions, the emergence of suppression benefits seemed to be dependent on multiple factors (Conci, Deichsel, Müller, & Töllner, 2019;Han & Kim, 2009;Stilwell & Vecera, 2019;Tanda & Kawahara, 2019;Töllner, Conci, & Müller, 2015), especially the constancy of distractor cues across trials so as to form expectations (Cunningham & Egeth, 2016;Gaspelin, Leonard, & Luck, 2015;Gaspelin & Luck, 2018a;Vatterott & Vecera, 2012;Wen, Hou, & Li, 2018, for reviews, see Gaspelin & Luck, 2018bNoonan, Crittenden, Jensen, & Stokes, 2018;van Moorselaar & Slagter, 2020).…”