The roles of relevance and expectation for the control of attention in visual search.

Abstract

Representations of target-defining features (attentional templates) control the allocation of attention during visual search. We investigated whether templ ate-guided attentional selectivity is sensitive not only to the relevance of visual features, but also to expectations about their probability. Search displays could contain a target in an expected (80%) or unexpected (20%) color. They were preceded by spatially uninformative cues that matched either the expected or unexpected target color. These color cues attracted attention, reflected by behavioral spatial cueing effects and by cue-elicited N2pc components obtained via EEG measured during task performance. Critically, these attentional capture effects were identical for both color cues, suggesting that preparatory attentional templates only reflect relevance, and are insensitive to expectations about target color probabilities. In contrast, RTs and N2pc components to search targets in the unexpected color were delayed, showing that expectations modulated the speed of attentional target selection within search displays. This dissociation between the effects of relevance and expectation on attentional preparation versus target selection suggests that these two parameters for attentional control are represented differently. Task-relevance is likely to be specified at the level of individual features, whereas expectations could be represented in an object-based fashion.

Statistical regularities cause attentional suppression with target-matching distractors

“…The effects of spatial frequency in our study differ markedly from a previous manipulation of feature frequency in the contingent capture paradigm. In search with two target colors, Berggren and Eimer (2019) observed that cueing effects were not affected by whether the cue appeared in the frequent or infrequent target color, suggesting that feature-based attention only reflects which color is task relevant, but ignores feature frequencies (but see Cosman & Vecera, 2014). In contrast, we find that the frequency of cue positions does affect cueing effects.…”

Perceptual competition between targets and distractors determines working memory access and produces intrusion errors in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) tasks.

“…In statistical analyses of N2pc onset latency differences, F scores were corrected according to the formula provided by Ulrich and Miller (2001). N2pc mean amplitudes were also compared between trials with correct responses versus distractor intrusions, based on mean amplitudes of ipsilateralcontralateral difference waveforms in the 200 -300 ms time window after the onset of the target frame (e.g., Berggren & Eimer, 2019;Kiss, Van Velzen, & Eimer, 2008;Zivony & Eimer, 2020). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

The Missing Pieces of the Puzzle: A Review on the Interactive Nature of A-Priori Expectancies and Attention Bias toward Threat

“…Recent studies suggest that there are additive effects between task-relevance and a-priori expectancies. Specifically, participants were informed regarding the likelihood of encountering a certain target color out of two possible target colors amidst 4 colors (i.e., 3 distractors) in a visual search array [ 28 ]. Participants were asked to indicate the orientation of rectangular bars in target colors.…”

“…Thus, cues that act as preparatory attentional templates only reflect relevance, rather than statistical expectations regarding the upcoming targets. Additionally, results showed that during the search, expectancies regarding probabilities of target colors did have an effect, as reaction time and the onset of the N2pc component were delayed when the infrequent target color appeared [ 28 ]. Thus, relevance and a-priori encounter expectancies differentially affect attentional capture.…”