Correction to: Age-related differences in the attentional white bear.

This article was originally published with errors in the graphs. It has been republished with corrections.

Age-related differences in the attentional white bear.

The cognitive aging literature suggests that aging populations exhibit impairments in the proactive inhibition of attention. Although proactive inhibition is often preceded by the allocation of attention toward the predicted or known spatial location of to-be-ignored stimuli, proactive allocation of attention has not been assessed in aging populations. In this study, an older and younger cohort engaged in the attentional-white-bear paradigm which measures proactive allocation of attention. In this task, on 80% of trials, participants must identify a centrally located letter surrounded by congruent or incongruent flanker letters. The flanker locations are fixed and predictable within each block of the study. On 20% of trials, they must identify which of two dots appear first on the screen. One dot appears in the same location as the flanker, and one appears in an empty location during the flanker task. The typical white-bear effect is that, despite the dots appearing at the same time, participants more often report the dot in the location of the flanker (i.e., the potentially to-be-ignored location) to appear first. The magnitude of this effect is interpreted as the magnitude of attentional allocation prior to inhibition. In Experiment 1, there was no difference in the magnitude of the attentional white bear between younger and aging cohorts. However, when the attentional system was sufficiently taxed by reducing the flanker presentation (Experiments 2a and 2b), age-related differences emerged. In particular, older participants showed a reduced white-bear effect, reflecting a potential impairment in the proactive allocation of attention toward the location of expected distractors.

Top-Down Processes Override Bottom-Up Interference in the Flanker Task.

Distractor interference in the flanker task is commonly viewed as an outcome of unintentional, involuntary processing, a by-product of attention-controlled processing of the target. An important implication of this notion is that the distractors are not subjected to top-down processing of their own. We tested this idea in a modified version of the flanker task, in which letter targets (S or O) were sometimes flanked by ambiguous distractors (a character that could be S or 5 or one that could be O or 0). Distractor interference was dependent on participants' expectations regarding the category of the distractors (i.e., letters or digits). For example, the O-0 distractor interfered with responding to S when it was perceived as a letter, but not when it was perceived as a digit. Hence, participants applied top-down processing to the peripheral distractors independently of the top-down processing applied to the targets. The fact that to-be-ignored peripheral distractors were processed to such a high level raises questions regarding the fundamental differences between target and distractor processing, and the quality of attentional filtering.

The mutations paradigm: assessing the time course of distractor processing.

The temporal loci of distractor processing were assessed in a flanker task with mutating distractors. We introduce the mutations paradigm, which allows for behavioral assessments of the critical time window during which distractors are processed. A central target was flanked by two identical distractors. While the target remained unchanged throughout the trial, the distractors' identities mutated once per trial, at a random time during the initial 200 ms following onset. There were three types of trials: incongruent (i.e., disruptive) distractors that mutated to neutral distractors, neutral distractors that mutated to incongruent ones, or neutral distractors that mutated to different neutral distractors (control). The results revealed that presentations of incongruent distractors for a mere 17 ms were sufficient to significantly delay responses. After 50 ms, perceptual information ceased to be accumulated from distractors locations but was still being collected from the target location. We suggest that (a) extensive information about the target and distractors was gathered as early as 17 ms after onset; (b) attentional modulations of processing consummated later, between 34 and 51 ms; and (c) once attentional mechanisms had stepped in (~50 ms), selection achieved full and sustained efficiency. These findings seem to challenge basic assumptions held by early-selection, late-selection, and load theories.

Low level perceptual, not attentional, processes modulate distractor interference in high perceptual load displays: evidence from neglect/extinction.

According to perceptual load theory (Lavie, 2005) distractor interference is determined by the availability of attentional resources. If target processing does not exhaust resources (with low perceptual load) distractor processing will take place resulting in interference with a primary task; however, when target processing uses-up attentional capacity (with high perceptual load) interference can be avoided. An alternative account (Tsal and Benoni, 2010a) suggests that perceptual load effects can be based on distractor dilution by the mere presence of additional neutral items in high-load displays so that the effect is not driven by the amount of attention resources required for target processing. Here we tested whether patients with unilateral neglect or extinction would show dilution effects from neutral items in their contralesional (neglected/extinguished) field, even though these items do not impose increased perceptual load on the target and at the same time attract reduced attentional resources compared to stimuli in the ipsilesional field. Thus, such items do not affect the amount of attention resources available for distractor processing. We found that contralesional neutral elements can eliminate distractor interference as strongly as centrally presented ones in neglect/extinction patients, despite contralesional items being less well attended. The data are consistent with an account in terms of perceptual dilution of distracters rather than available resources for distractor processing. We conclude that distractor dilution can underlie the elimination of distractor interference in visual displays.

Attentional sets influence perceptual load effects, but not dilution effects.

Perceptual load theory [Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451-468.; Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994) Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 183-197.] proposes that interference from distractors can only be avoided in situations of high perceptual load. This theory has been supported by blocked design manipulations separating low load (when the target appears alone) and high load (when the target is embedded among neutral letters). Tsal and Benoni [(2010a). Diluting the burden of load: Perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1645-1656.; Benoni, H., & Tsal, Y. (2010). Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention. Vision Research, 50, 1292-1298.] have recently shown that these manipulations confound perceptual load with "dilution" (the mere presence of additional heterogeneous items in high-load situations). Theeuwes, Kramer, and Belopolsky [(2004). Attentional set interacts with perceptual load in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 697-702.] independently questioned load theory by suggesting that attentional sets might also affect distractor interference. When high load and low load were intermixed, and participants could not prepare for the presentation that followed, both the low-load and high-load trials showed distractor interference. This result may also challenge the dilution account, which proposes a stimulus-driven mechanism. In the current study, we presented subjects with both fixed and mixed blocks, including a mix of dilution trials with low-load trials and with high-load trials. We thus separated the effect of dilution from load and tested the influence of attentional sets on each component. The results revealed that whereas perceptual load effects are influenced by attentional sets, the dilution component is not. This strengthens the notion that dilution is a stimulus-driven mechanism, which enables effective selectivity.

Conceptual and methodological concerns in the theory of perceptual load.

The present paper provides a short critical review of the theory of perceptual load. It closely examines the basic tenets and assumptions of the theory and identifies major conceptual and methodological problems that have been largely ignored in the literature. The discussion focuses on problems in the definition of the concept of perceptual load, on the circularity in the characterization and manipulation of perceptual load and the confusion between the concept of perceptual load and its operationalization. The paper also selectively reviews evidence supporting the theory as well as inconsistent evidence which proposed alternative dominant factors influencing the efficacy of attentional selection.

Allocating attention to distractor locations is based on top-down expectations.

Failures of selective attention may be explained by the attentional white bear (AWB) hypothesis maintaining that prior knowledge of distractor location causes attentional allocation to it. The AWB is demonstrated by embedding infrequent trials of two simultaneous dots among flanker trials. The dot at the expected distractor location is perceived as appearing before the dot at the expected empty location, indicating attentional allocation to expected distractor locations. A major requirement of the AWB hypothesis is that it occurs in a top-down manner due to expectations. We devised a variation of the original AWB experiment, which enabled us to differentiate between the top-down and bottom-up contributions. The results show that top-down expectancies, which are a critical part of the AWB characterization, occur independently of bottom-up contributions.

Controlling for dilution while manipulating load: perceptual and sensory limitations are just two aspects of task difficulty.

Lavie and de Fockert (2003) proposed that perceptual load and sensory limitations reflect two distinct mechanisms producing opposite effects: Perceptual load eliminates distractor interference, whereas sensory limitations enhance it. Tsal and Benoni (2010a) suggested that these results may have been due to the confounding effect of dilution--that is, to the presence (perceptual load) or absence (sensory load) of neutral items capable of diluting distractor interference. In the present study, we jointly manipulated dilution with perceptual load and with sensory degradation. The results show that, with both perceptual and sensory manipulations, the presence of diluting items eliminates distractor interference, whereas controlling for dilution increases distractor interference. We therefore conclude that perceptual and sensory limitations are just two aspects of task difficulty.

White bear everywhere: exploring the boundaries of the attentional white bear phenomenon.

Some failures of selective attention may be explained by the attentional white bear (AWB) phenomenon Tsal & Makovski (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32:351-363, 2006), which indicates that prior knowledge of a distractor location causes attention to be actively allocated to it. The AWB effect is demonstrated in a task that includes infrequent trials that involve two simultaneous dots embedded among flanker trials. The dot positioned at an expected distractor location is perceived as appearing before the dot at an expected empty location, indicating that attentional resources have initially been allocated to the expected distractor locations. The main goal of this study was to explore the boundaries of the AWB phenomenon by imposing perceptual, memory, and sensory constraints on the flanker task. The results showed that the AWB effect was obtained even when additional constraints severely taxed the information-processing system. We propose that a mandatory mechanism guides a fixed minimal amount of attention to expected distractor locations in a top-down manner.

Conjunctive Continuous Performance Task (CCPT)--a pure measure of sustained attention.

Among the large variety of attentional tasks that have been used to study sustained attention, the Continuous Performance Task (CPT) is perhaps the most widely used. Despite substantial differences in task characteristics and demands, all CPT paradigms have been referred to as measures of sustained attention. In the present study we introduce a new variant of CPT, which minimizes perceptual and memory components while maximizing the sustained attention components of the task. In addition, we tested the contention that the ability to sustain attention should not be overly dependent on the specific stimuli and task-modality. To this end, we used a new visual Conjunctive CPT (CCPT) developed by Tsal, Shalev, & Mevorach (2005) and its auditory analogue. Using a Multi-Trait-Multi-Method (MTMM) analysis investigating reliability coefficients, convergent validity coefficients and divergent (discriminant) validity coefficients, we established that the new CCPT is a valid measure of sustained attention. In particular, high correlations were obtained between mean RT and SD-RT within each sensory modality. High correlations were also found between performance across sensory modalities (mean convergent validity: .71). Finally, low correlations (mean correlation of .18) were found between performance in the CCPT tasks and performance in two additional visuospatial attention tasks, which do not rely on sustained attention. These findings suggest that independent of sensory modality, the two CCPT tasks used here tap the same stable construct, namely, sustained attention. We conclude that when a measure of sustained attention is required, researchers should be aware of the caveats of standard CPT's and should be careful in selecting a proper task. Moreover, clinicians should appreciate that some CPT measures may reflect a combination of different cognitive operations rather than pure sustained attention.

Diluting the burden of load: perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects.

The substantial distractor interference obtained for small displays when the target appears alone is reduced in large displays when the target is embedded among neutral letters. This finding has been interpreted as reflecting low-load and high-load processing, respectively, thereby supporting the theory of perceptual load (Lavie & Tsal, 1994). However, a possible alternative interpretation of this effect is that the distractor is similarly processed in both displays, yet its interference in the large ones is diluted by the presence of the neutral letters. We separated the effects of load and dilution by introducing dilution displays. They contained as many letters as the high-load displays but were clearly distinguished from the target, thus allowing for a low-load processing mode. Distractor interference obtained under both the low-load and high-load conditions disappeared under the dilution condition. Hence, the display size effect traditionally misattributed to perceptual load is fully accounted for by dilution. Furthermore, when dilution is controlled for, it is high load not low load producing greater interference.

Where have we gone wrong? Perceptual load does not affect selective attention.

The theory of perceptual load (Lavie & Tsal, 1994) proposes that with low load in relevant processing left over resources spill over to process irrelevant distractors. Interference could only be prevented under High-Load Conditions where relevant processing exhausts attentional resources. The theory is based primarily on the finding that distractor interference obtained in low load displays, when the target appears alone, is eliminated in high load displays when it is embedded among neutral letters. However, a possible alternative interpretation of this effect is that the distractor is similarly processed in both displays, yet its interference in the large displays is diluted by the presence of the neutral letters. We separated the possible effects of load and dilution by adding dilution displays that were high in dilution and low in perceptual load. In the first experiment these displays contained as many letters as the high load displays, but their neutral letters were clearly distinguished from the target, thereby allowing for a low load processing mode. In the second experiment we presented identical multicolor displays in the Dilution and High-Load Conditions. However, in the former the target color was known in advance (thereby preserving a low load processing mode) whereas in the latter it was not. In both experiments distractor interference was completely eliminated under the Dilution Condition. Thus, it is dilution not perceptual load affecting distractor processing.

Computerized progressive attentional training (CPAT) program: effective direct intervention for children with ADHD.

We tested the efficacy of a pioneering intervention program grounded in a contemporary theoretical framework of attention and designed to directly improve the various attentional functions of children with ADHD. The computerized progressive attentional training (CPAT) program is composed of four sets of structured tasks that uniquely activate sustained attention, selective attention, orienting of attention, and executive attention. Performance was driven by tight schedules of feedback and participants automatically advanced in ordered levels of difficulty contingent upon performance. Twenty 6- to 13-year-old children with ADHD were assigned to the experimental group and received the CPAT sessions twice a week over an 8-week period. Sixteen age-matched control children with ADHD were assigned to the control group and participated in sessions of the same frequency, length, and format except that instead of performing the training tasks they played various computer games during the session. The experimental participants showed a significant improvement in nontrained measures of reading comprehension, and passage copying as well as a significant reduction of parents' reports of inattentiveness. No significant improvements were observed in the control group. We thus concluded that the above academic and attentional improvements were primarily due to the CPAT.

The attentional white bear phenomenon: the mandatory allocation of attention to expected distractor locations.

The authors devised a prestimulus-probe method to assess the allocation of attention as a function of participants' top-down expectancies concerning distractor and target locations. Participants performed the flanker task, and distractor locations remained fixed. On some trials, instead of the flanker display, either 2 simultaneous dots or a horizontal line appeared. The dot in the expected distractor location was perceived to occur before the dot in the expected empty location, and the line appeared to extend from the expected distractor location to the expected empty location, suggesting that attention is allocated to expected distractor locations prior to stimulus onset. The authors propose that a process-all mechanism guides attention to expected locations of all stimuli regardless of task demands and that this constitutes a major cause for failures of selective attention.

Localization judgments under various levels of attention.

We investigated the effects of attention on localization with two converging manipulations of attention. The results indicated that whereas attention improved localization, minimally attended stimuli were nonetheless localized fairly accurately. The distributions of localization responses around peripheral stimuli were asymmetric, with a greater dispersion along the axis linking fixation to stimulus location relative to its perpendicular axis. We propose that the unattended field comprises attentional receptive fields that are mediated by coarse location detectors. We speculate that attention produces fine localization by facilitating computations that integrate the relative activation of overlapping detectors.

The lengthening effect revisited: a reply to Prinzmetal and Wilson (1997) and Masin (1999).

In the present study, the lengthening phenomenon (Tsal & Shalev, 1996), namely, the increase in perceived length of unattended lines, was reexamined in light of criticisms by Prinzmetal and Wilson (1997) and Masin (1999). Prinzmetal and Wilson suggested that the effect was not due to attentional factors but to the spatial interaction between the attended line and the cue used to direct attention. We have replicated the lengthening effect when both attended and unattended lines are preceded by cues at a nearby location, showing that the effect is not caused by spatial cues per se, but instead reflects an inherent property of the attentional system. Masin argued that the lengthening effect is not robust, because it occurs for some but not for all participants. In the present study, the lengthening effect was highly reliable, occurring for each participant for a variety of line lengths.

The diversity of attention deficits in ADHD: the prevalence of four cognitive factors in ADHD versus controls.

The performance of participants with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) relative to control participants was measured on four tasks uniquely assessing the functions of selective attention, executive attention, sustained attention, and orienting of attention. The results showed that deficits in sustained attention were the most pronounced, characterizing most participants with ADHD and deficits in each of the other three functions characterized more than half of these participants. Different participants with ADHD revealed different clusters of attentional deficits. These results call for a revision of leading theories of ADHD that identify the core of the pathology as a sole deficit in executive functions.

Does a salient distractor capture attention early in processing?

Kim and Cave (1999) used spatial probes in order to measure the effects of bottom-up and top-down factors on the allocation of spatial attention over time. Subjects searched for a target with a unique shape, with a uniquely colored distractor present on each trial. The singleton distractor captured attention early in processing, whereas attention homed in on the target's location later on. Kim and Cave (1999) concluded that top-down factors cannot prevent the presence of a salient distractor from delaying target selection. The present study tested the idea that such results were obtained only because subjects adopted the strategy of searching for the most salient item. Kim and Cave's (1999) finding was replicated in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, instead of a feature search, subjects performed a conjunction search-that is, a task that could not be performed using a salience-based strategy. Probe response times were longest at the salient distractor's location at both the short and the long stimulus onset asynchronies. These results suggest that, early in processing, top-down factors can exert their influence and prevent the capture of attention by a salient distractor.

The wide attentional window: a major deficit of children with attention difficulties.

The present study assessed visual selective attention in children with attention difficulties compared to age-matched, typically achieving children. We used the flanker task, which requires participants to respond to a central target flanked by distractors, and the feature and conjunction visual search, which requires participants to search for a predesignated target embedded among a variable number of distractors. The results showed that children with attention difficulties encountered major problems only when responding to a central target flanked by adjacent incongruent distractors and when searching for a conjunctive target in a high-density display. These results suggest that children with attention difficulties have a characteristic inability to restrict visual attention to a limited spatial area so as to selectively process relevant information while effectively ignoring distracting information.