Signal enhancement, not active suppression, follows the contingent capture of visual attention.

Abstract

Irrelevant visual cues capture attention when they possess a task-relevant feature. Electrophysiologically, this contingent capture of attention is evidenced by the N2pc component of the visual event-related potential (ERP) and an enlarged ERP positivity over the occipital hemisphere contralateral to the cued location. The N2pc reflects an early stage of attentional selection, but presently it is unclear what the contralateral ERP positivity reflects. One hypothesis is that it reflects the perceptual enhancement of the cued search-array item; another hypothesis is that it is time-locked to the preceding cue display and reflects active suppression of the cue itself. Here, we varied the time interval between a cue display and a subsequent target display to evaluate these competing hypotheses. The results demonstrated that the contralateral ERP positivity is tightly time-locked to the appearance of the search display rather than the cue display, thereby supporting the perceptual enhancement hypothesis and disconfirming the cue-suppression hypothesis. (PsycINFO Database Record

An Overview of Assistive Devices for Blind and Visually Impaired People

“…Findings of the previous literature evidence are in accordance with the perceptual enhancement hypothesis, that is VIPs and blind people will attempt to develop the ability of other senses to compensate for visual impairment [42], [43]. A recent survey concluded that complete blind people at an early stage show the superior performance in spatial hearing in the horizontal plane, but the performance in the vertical plane is unsatisfactory [44].…”

Combined Electrophysiological and Behavioral Evidence for the Suppression of Salient Distractors

“…It is worth mentioning that the timing of the P D component varies considerably across studies (e.g., approximately 200–350 ms in Barras & Kerzel, 2016; 250–290 ms in Gaspar & McDonald, 2014; 148–158 ms in Weaver et al, 2017; 115–225 ms in Sawaki & Luck, 2010). It will be important for future research to determine whether the contralateral positivities observed in these studies actually reflect the same underlying process (e.g., see Livingstone, Christie, Wright, & McDonald, 2017). …”

Subtle Distinctions: How Attentional Templates Influence EEG Parameters of Cognitive Control in a Spatial Cuing Paradigm

“…This contralateral relative to ipsilateral amplification in the time range of P1 has been associated with attentional enhancement of the stimulus that appeared at the cued location. Recently, Livingstone et al ( 2017 ) replicated a spatial cuing study that was conducted by Sawaki and Luck ( 2013 ) to uncover whether the positivity that occurred during target presentation was really a cue-elicited P D or rather indexed attentional enhancement of the cued stimulus. Like Mertes et al ( 2016 ), Livingstone et al ( 2017 ) varied the SOA between cue and target array onset and could also show that the contralateral positivity was always linked to the onset of the target array.…”

“…Recently, Livingstone et al ( 2017 ) replicated a spatial cuing study that was conducted by Sawaki and Luck ( 2013 ) to uncover whether the positivity that occurred during target presentation was really a cue-elicited P D or rather indexed attentional enhancement of the cued stimulus. Like Mertes et al ( 2016 ), Livingstone et al ( 2017 ) varied the SOA between cue and target array onset and could also show that the contralateral positivity was always linked to the onset of the target array. Based on their findings, the authors assumed that this target-tied P D actually reflected a contralateral enhancement of P1 in response to the stimulus in the search array that occurred at the same location as the preceding irrelevant cue (Heinze et al, 1990 ; Luck et al, 1990 ; McDonald et al, 2005 ; Fukuda and Vogel, 2009 ; Störmer et al, 2009 ).…”