Probability cueing of distractor locations: both intertrial facilitation and statistical learning mediate interference reduction.

Targets in a visual search task are detected faster if they appear in a probable target region as compared to a less probable target region, an effect which has been termed "probability cueing." The present study investigated whether probability cueing cannot only speed up target detection, but also minimize distraction by distractors in probable distractor regions as compared to distractors in less probable distractor regions. To this end, three visual search experiments with a salient, but task-irrelevant, distractor ("additional singleton") were conducted. Experiment 1 demonstrated that observers can utilize uneven spatial distractor distributions to selectively reduce interference by distractors in frequent distractor regions as compared to distractors in rare distractor regions. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that intertrial facilitation, i.e., distractor position repetitions, and statistical learning (independent of distractor position repetitions) both contribute to the probability cueing effect for distractor locations. Taken together, the present results demonstrate that probability cueing of distractor locations has the potential to serve as a strong attentional cue for the shielding of likely distractor locations.

Early top-down control over saccadic target selection: Evidence from a systematic salience difference manipulation.

Previous research on the contribution of top-down control to saccadic target selection has suggested that eye movements, especially short-latency saccades, are primarily salience driven. The present study was designed to systematically examine top-down influences as a function of time and relative salience difference between target and distractor. Observers performed a saccadic selection task, requiring them to make an eye movement to an orientation-defined target, while ignoring a color-defined distractor. The salience of the distractor was varied (five levels), permitting the percentage of target and distractor fixations to be analyzed as a function of the salience difference between the target and distractor. This analysis revealed the same pattern of results for both the overall and the short-latency saccades: When the target and distractor were of comparable salience, the vast majority of saccades went directly to the target; even distractors somewhat more salient than the target led to significantly fewer distractor, as compared with target, fixations. To quantify the amount of top-down control applied, we estimated the point of equal selection probability for the target and distractor. Analyses of these estimates revealed that, to be selected with equal probability to the target, a distractor had to have a considerably greater bottom-up salience, as compared with the target. This difference suggests a strong contribution of top-down control to saccadic target selection-even for the earliest saccades.

Salience-based selection: attentional capture by distractors less salient than the target.

Current accounts of attentional capture predict the most salient stimulus to be invariably selected first. However, existing salience and visual search models assume noise in the map computation or selection process. Consequently, they predict the first selection to be stochastically dependent on salience, implying that attention could even be captured first by the second most salient (instead of the most salient) stimulus in the field. Yet, capture by less salient distractors has not been reported and salience-based selection accounts claim that the distractor has to be more salient in order to capture attention. We tested this prediction using an empirical and modeling approach of the visual search distractor paradigm. For the empirical part, we manipulated salience of target and distractor parametrically and measured reaction time interference when a distractor was present compared to absent. Reaction time interference was strongly correlated with distractor salience relative to the target. Moreover, even distractors less salient than the target captured attention, as measured by reaction time interference and oculomotor capture. In the modeling part, we simulated first selection in the distractor paradigm using behavioral measures of salience and considering the time course of selection including noise. We were able to replicate the result pattern we obtained in the empirical part. We conclude that each salience value follows a specific selection time distribution and attentional capture occurs when the selection time distributions of target and distractor overlap. Hence, selection is stochastic in nature and attentional capture occurs with a certain probability depending on relative salience.

Top-down control of attention: it's gradual, practice-dependent, and hierarchically organized.

When searching for a "pop-out" target, interference from a salient but irrelevant distractor can be reduced or even prevented under certain circumstances. Here, five experiments were conducted to further our understanding of three different aspects of top-down interference reduction: first, whether or not qualitatively different search modes can account for different reduction patterns; second, whether distractor practice plays a causal role in reduction; and third, how specific reduction is, that is, whether interference by intradimensional distractors can be reduced as effectively as interference by cross-dimensional distractors. The results provide evidence that interference reduction does not critically depend on the implementation of a feature search mode, but rather on practice with the distractor, that is, the acquisition of an effective suppression strategy. In addition, they suggest that interference reduction is based on hierarchically organized feature weighting ("dimension weighting"), rather than on completely independent feature weighting.