The Role of Perceptual Load in Processing Distractor Faces

Abstract

It has been established that successful ignoring of irrelevant distractors depends on the extent to which the current task loads attention. However, the previous load studies have typically employed neutral distractor stimuli (e.g., letters). In the experiments reported here, we examined whether the perception of irrelevant distractor faces would show the same effects. We manipulated attentional load in a relevant task of name search by varying the search set size and found that whereas congruency effects from meaningful nonface distractors were eliminated by higher search load, interference from distractor faces was entirely unaffected by search load. These results support the idea that face processing may be mandatory and generalize the load theory to the processing of meaningful and more complex nonface distractors.

A crossmodal crossover: Opposite effects of visual and auditory perceptual load on steady-state evoked potentials to irrelevant visual stimuli

“…For instance, numerous behavioural studies have examined the relationship between visual perceptual load and the magnitude of the flanker compatibility effect (Eriksen and Eriksen, 1974). These studies have shown that as the perceptual load associated with the target is increased, the magnitude of the flanker compatibility effect is reduced or even eliminated altogether (Lavie, 1995;Lavie and Cox, 1997;Lavie et al, 2004;Lavie et al, 2003), consistent with the notion that increasing perceptual load reduces involuntary processing of unattended flanker items. Further evidence Crossmodal perceptual load 4 comes from studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure the magnitude of blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) responses to unattended visual stimuli under varying levels of visual perceptual load.…”

Now hear this: Inattentional deafness depends on task relatedness

“…Some nontarget visual stimuli have been shown to be prioritized for processing even while performing high-load tasks, and may draw on participant-specific backgrounds. Lavie, Ro, and Russell (2003) and He and Chen (2010) both showed that RTs to categorize centrally presented words in high-load searches were influenced by peripherally presented faces that were strongly related to the words. In addition, Ro, Friggel, and Lavie (2009), using a task similar to Lavie et al (2003), demonstrated that prior experience can impact attention control settings when processing nonface visual stimuli.…”

“…Lavie, Ro, and Russell (2003) and He and Chen (2010) both showed that RTs to categorize centrally presented words in high-load searches were influenced by peripherally presented faces that were strongly related to the words. In addition, Ro, Friggel, and Lavie (2009), using a task similar to Lavie et al (2003), demonstrated that prior experience can impact attention control settings when processing nonface visual stimuli. When expert musicians classified centrally presented words as naming one of two types of musical instruments presented in high-load searches, their RTs were influenced by peripherally presented pictures of musical instruments that varied in congruity with the target word.…”

“…In low-load searches, such biasing would be weaker, such that visual cortical resources could also be used to process flanking stimuli. This spatial processing bias may, however, be altered or even overridden by stimuli prioritized by attention, such as pictures of faces (e.g., Lavie et al, 2003) or highly meaningful objects (e.g., Ro et al, 2009). This spatial processing bias might also be altered by stimuli from another modality that are prioritized by attention.…”

Functional connectivity in the default network during resting state is preserved in a vegetative but not in a brain dead patient

“…Several recent studies demonstrated that faces constitute a class of stimuli that are especially prone to capture attention (Bindemann, Burton, Hooge, Jenkins, & de Haan, 2005;Lavie, Ro, & Russell, 2003;Theeuwes & Van der Stichgel, 2006). However, few studies evaluated whether one's own face, because of its self-significance, is more likely to draw attention than other faces.…”