Selection history modulates the effects of dual mechanisms on flanker interference.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Cave

2016

Self Cite

Perceptual load theory (Lavie, 2005) claims that attentional capacity that is not used for the current task is allocated to irrelevant distractors. It predicts that if the attentional demands of the current task are high, distractor interference will be low. One particularly powerful demonstration of perceptual load effects on distractor processing relies on a go/no-go cue that is interpreted by either simple feature detection or feature conjunction (Lavie, 1995). However, a possible alternative interpretation of these effects is that the differential degree of distractor processing is caused by how broadly attention is allocated (attentional zoom) rather than to perceptual load. In 4 experiments, we show that when stimuli are arranged to equalize the extent of spatial attention across conditions, distractor interference varies little whether cues are defined by a simple feature or a conjunction, and that the typical perceptual load effect emerges only when attentional zoom can covary with perceptual load. These results suggest that attentional zoom can account for the differential degree of distractor processing traditionally attributed to perceptual load in the go/no-go paradigm. They also provide new insight into how different factors interact to control distractor interference. (PsycINFO Database Record

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 93%

Zooming in on the cause of the perceptual load effect in the go/no-go paradigm.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Cave

2016

Self Cite

“…Effects of selection history have also been reported in visual search studies (e.g., Chun & Jiang, 1998;Leber & Egeth, 2006;Yeh et al, 2014), including those in which the target was a singleton (e.g., Bravo & Nakayama, 1992;Chen & Cave, 2015;Leonard & Egeth, 2008;Maljkovic & Nakayama, 1994;Müller et al, 2003). The latter studies are particularly interesting because searching for a singleton can be accomplished easily via stimulus-driven processes due to its salience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Although the deployment of a specific attentional control setting is traditionally thought to be influenced primarily by top-down factors such as the current selection goal and bottom-up factors such as the salience of the target relative to distractors, there is increasing evidence that past experience, or selection history, also plays an important role (see Awh et al, 2012, andKristjànsson &Campana, 2010, for reviews). Selection history has been found to affect performance immediately (e.g., Chen & Cave, 2015;Leonard & Egeth, 2008;Maljkovic & Nakayama, 1994), across different blocks of trials (e.g., Leber & Egeth, 2006;Yeh et al, 2014), and even after a week (e.g., Leber et al, 2009). In Maljkovic and Nakayama, participants searched for an oddcolored target among distractors of a homogeneous color.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection history modulates the limit of visual awareness in color perception

2021

Psychon Bull Rev

Self Cite

Among studies on the limit of conscious representation of color at a given instant, some have shown evidence of momentary awareness of only a single color, while others have not, leading to uncertainty about the factors that influence the limit. In two experiments, we explored the role of selection history, or recent experience with a trial, which is known to influence the representations of task stimuli and responses. Two color patches were briefly displayed either simultaneously or sequentially.In Experiment 1, we presented the two types of trials either in separate blocks or in interleaved couplets. In the former case, participants could deploy optimal attentional control setting in response to different types of trials with little cost by using recent experience with a preceding trial and prior knowledge. In the latter case, reconfiguring attentional control setting after each trial would be costly. In Experiment 2, we mixed the two types of trials randomly within a block during testing, but re-grouped them in data analyses such that the same type of trials was either repeated or not repeated. The results show that accuracy was comparable between the simultaneous and sequential trials in the block condition in Experiment 1 and in the repeat condition in Experiment 2, suggesting that two colors were perceived at a time. These results indicate that selection history plays an important role in the limit of visual awareness in color perception and that the finding of single-color perception reported in previous research might not be a general phenomenon.

“…An infrequently presented onset distractor leads to significant distraction processing while a frequently presented one does not (Cosman & Vecera, 2010), and both perceptual grouping and the salience of a target relative to the distractor and/or the other stimuli in a display affect the degree of distractor processing (Baylis & Driver, 1992;Biggs & Gibson, 2013;Biggs, Kreager, & Davoli, 2015;Eltiti, Wallas, & Fox, 2005;Yeh & Lin, 2013;Yeshurun & Marciano, 2013). These and other empirical findings Biggs & Gibson, 2010;Chen & Chan, 2007;Wilson et al, 2011;Yeh, Lee, Chen, & Chen, 2014 ), together with the conceptual and methodological issues raised by a number of researchers (see Benoni & Tsal, 2013;Giesbrecht, Sy, Bundesen, & Kyllingsbaek, 2014;and Murphy, Groeger, & Greene, 2016, for reviews), indicate that the simple principles of PLT do not fully capture the complex interactions among targets and nontargets in complex stimulus arrays. In this review we will focus primarily on behavioral studies that do not involve a secondary task.…”

Section: Perceptual Loadmentioning

confidence: 89%

Identifying visual targets amongst interfering distractors: Sorting out the roles of perceptual load, dilution, and attentional zoom

Cave

Atten Percept Psychophys

2016

Self Cite

Visual selection is imperfect; whenever a complex array of objects is processed, representations of multiple objects are likely to be active simultaneously. A full account of attentional processing must explain how these representations affect one another and how they interact to produce a response. Evidence on these interactions comes from measures of distractor interference and from dilution of distractor effects by other nontargets. Based on these data, different principles have been proposed to help understand target-distractor interactions, including accounts based on perceptual load and on dilution among nontargets. We review evidence from a number of experiments, including some using Yantis and Jonides's (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 601-621, 1984, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 121-134, 1990) methods for preventing abrupt onsets, which can disrupt spatial attention. The results underscore spatial constraints on the allocation of attention to include targets and exclude distractors. Selection is most effective when a single region can be selected that includes all possible target locations and excludes possible distractor locations. This region can be expanded or contracted as needed for the task, as suggested by C. W. Eriksen and St. James's (Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225-240, 1986) zoom lens model. This attentional zoom setting is probably affected by a number of factors, including the number of nontargets, the similarity among stimulus elements, the discriminability of the possible targets, and the discrimination difficulty of a concurrent task. A narrower attentional zoom setting that excludes a distractor will prevent interference from that distractor. Interference from a distractor will be diluted by nontargets, but only if they are within the attentional zoom region.