Humans have a remarkable capability to respond efficiently to a stimulus of interest despite other stimuli competing for neural resources. The current study investigated how the human system copes with distracting stimuli. During each trial, participants viewed 2 sequential stimuli that were each associated with a specific action based on an arbitrary mapping. The 1st stimulus served as a distractor, and the 2nd stimulus required a response (target). When the distractor preceded the target by more than a few hundred milliseconds, response latencies were slower when the 2 stimuli were associated with the same response. The authors propose that this negative compatibility effect stemmed from an inhibitory mechanism that the human system utilizes to prevent the distractor from eliciting an unwanted response.

No abstract

Along with target amplification, distractor inhibition is regarded as a major contributor to selective attention. Some theories suggest that the strength of inhibitory processing is proportional to the salience of the distractor (i.e., inhibition reacts to the distractor intensity). Other theories suggest that the strength of inhibitory processing does not depend on the salience of the distractor (i.e., inhibition does not react to the distractor intensity). The present study aimed to elucidate the relationship between the intensity of a distractor and its subsequent inhibition during focused attention. A flanker task with a variable distractor-target stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) was used to measure both distractor interference and distractor inhibition. We manipulated the intensity of the distractor in two separate ways, by varying its distance from the target (Experiment 1) and by varying its brightness (Experiment 2). The results indicate that more intense distractors were associated with both increased interference and stronger distractor inhibition. The latter outcome provides novel support for the reactive inhibition hypothesis, which posits that inhibition reacts to the strength of distractor input, such that more salient distractors elicit stronger inhibition.

Research suggests that although target amplification acts as the main determinant of the efficacy of selective attention, distractor inhibition contributes under some circumstances. Here we aimed to gain insight into the operating principles that regulate the use of distractor inhibition during selective attention. The results suggest that, in contrast to target amplification, distractor inhibition does not onset earlier or strengthen in response to advance location information. Instead, when the location of the impending distractor was predictable, evidence of inhibitory processing weakened. Furthermore, the results suggest that distractor inhibition does not operate as a compensatory mechanism for target amplification, as evidenced by the lack of an increase in inhibitory effects when reliance on target amplification was disrupted. Unexpected emergence of inhibitory effects for improbable targets provided evidence that distractor inhibition was at work even when no inhibitory effects manifested. Overall, the pattern of inhibitory effects is interpreted as indicating that, although distractor inhibition mounts primarily reactively rather than preemptively, advance information can help prevent overreaction to the distractor. Of course, less overreaction reduces the chances of behavioral inhibitory effects manifesting even when distractor inhibition has contributed to selective attention; thus, interpreting an absence of inhibitory effects should be done cautiously.

No abstract