“…This is based in part on the finding that the preview benefit is abolished when stimuli are isoluminant with their background and do not therefore generate abrupt luminance signals (e.g., Donk & Theeuwes, 2001 but see also Braithwaite, Hulleman, Watson, & Humphreys, 2006;von Mühlenen, Watson, & Gunnell, 2013). In contrast, a role for a limited capacity inhibitory mechanism comes from: (1) Findings evidencing inefficient search in preview conditions when performing a dual-task (Watson & Humphreys, 1997;Humphreys et al, 2002) and during the attentional blink (Olivers & Humphreys, 2002); (2) Experiments in which detecting a probe-dot is more difficult if it falls at the location of an old item compared with falling at the location of a new item (Watson & Humphreys, 2000;Humphreys, Stalmann, & Olivers, 2004;Osugi, Kumada, & Kawahara, 2009; but see also Agter & Donk, 2005); 3Results showing that location or feature-based changes to old items can destroy the preview benefit (Watson & Humphreys, 1997;Zupan, Watson, & Blagrove, 2015) unless the semantic meaning of the objects are maintained (Osugi, Kumada, & Kawahara, 2010), 4) Evidence for the carry-over of feature-based inhibition from old items to new items that share a common property (Braithwaite, Humphreys, & Hodsoll, 2003, 2004Andrews et al, 2011; see also Donk, 2017), and 5) the finding of flexible modulation of time-based visual selection when it is inconsistent with the goal state (Watson & Humphreys, 2000) or when contextual factors, such as the presence of highly salient targets, do not require it (Zupan et al, 2015). The most likely position is that the active inhibition of old stimuli helps to amplify the signals associated with bottom-up mechanisms related to the appearance of new items.…”