Accurate expectancies diminish perceptual distraction during visual search

Sy, Jocelyn L.; Guerin, Scott A.; Stegman, Anna; Giesbrecht, Barry

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00334

Cited by 9 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, we did not observe enhanced alpha suppression over visual areas in preparation for a high visual load. In accordance with findings of Sy et al 5 , if a low task load was expected, attentional capacity might have been used for deeper cue processing (and possible integration of modalities). Yet this is not what was observed and we cannot draw any conclusions based on our data.…”

Section: Ldap By Hopf and Mangunsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…However, it remains to be elucidated whether top-down factors, such as expectation of perceptual load, can already attenuate the task-irrelevant areas prior to the onset of the stimuli. While cueing / manipulation of sensory perceptual load has been found to modulate post-target attentional resource allocation 4,1,5,6 , the pre-stimulus neural allocation of resources in anticipation of visual load has rarely been studied. Here we investigated how expectation about perceptual task load in the visual domain, influenced preparatory activity in task-relevant and irrelevant sensory cortices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To this end, participants performed a visual search task in which a non-directional multimodal attentional cue manipulated expectancy about upcoming visual task load 5,26 , while their brain activity was recorded with EEG. This cue consisted of visual and auditory components.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Expect to neglect: Cross-modal resource allocation in anticipation of visual load

Mazaheri

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human information processing is limited in capacity. To prevent sensory overload, expectation of upcoming events has been suggested to allocate processing resources to task-relevant regions (e.g., visual system), at the expense of processing in task-irrelevant regions (e.g., auditory system). In support of this, for tasks involving a high visual perceptual load (e.g. visual target search within physically similar distractors), auditory evoked responses were found to be attenuated1. This EEG study aimed to further elucidate the neural mechanisms by which the brain prepares for sensory overload. We investigated how expectancy about visual load modulated neural activity, prior to the onset of visual stimuli. Visual load in a letter search task was manipulated by varying the target letter’s similarity to the remaining letters and the letter set size from which flankers were randomly drawn. Importantly, audio-visual cues signaled the likely visual load of the upcoming stimulus-array, manipulating expectancy about visual task load. Cues signaling high visual load elicited attenuated auditory-evoked responses and increased alpha activity over task-irrelevant (auditory) regions, suggesting a functional inhibition of those regions already prior to the arrival of the visual array to suppress auditory cue processing. We also observed a sustained posterior positivity in the ERPs after high perceptual load cues, whose amplitude correlated with reaction times, suggestive of resource allocation for the upcoming visual targets. Expectation about visual load may thus prepare the attentional system both by facilitating target processing and task execution and inhibiting irrelevant sensory processing, thus providing efficient means to overcome attentional limits in situations with complex visual input.

show abstract

Section: Ldap By Hopf and Mangunsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Expect to neglect: Cross-modal resource allocation in anticipation of visual load

Mazaheri

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is theorized that when the distractor and target are part of the same object, paying more attention to the target means paying more attention to the distractor. Expectancy, as manipulated through precueing targets and running blocks of all high-load or all low-load trials, has also been shown to reduce or eliminate distractor interference in low-load conditions (Johnson, McGrath, & McNeil, 2002;Sy, Guerin, Stegman, & Giesbrecht, 2014;Theeuwes, Kramer, & Belopolsky, 2004). Yet many other studies have presented blocks of either high-or low-load trials, in which load could be accurately predicted, and have still produced evidence in support of load theory (Beck & Lavie, 2005;Forster & Lavie, 2007bKonstantinou & Lavie, 2013) Experiments that manipulate perceptual and cognitive load simultaneously (so called "sandwich tasks" like the one shown in Fig.…”

Section: Other Criticismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty years of load theory—Where are we now, and where should we go next?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selective attention allows us to ignore what is taskirrelevant and focus on what is task-relevant. The cognitive and neural mechanisms that underlie this process are key topics of investigation in cognitive psychology. One of the more prominent theories of attention is perceptual load theory, which suggests that the efficiency of selective attention is dependent on both perceptual and cognitive load. It is now more than 20 years since the proposal of load theory, and it is a good time to evaluate the evidence in support of this influential model. The present article supplements and extends previous reviews (Lavie, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75-82. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004, 2005, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 143-148. doi:10.1177/ 0963721410370295, 2010 by examining more recent research in what appears to be a rapidly expanding area. The article comprises five parts, examining (1) evidence for the effects of perceptual load on attention, (2) cognitive load, (3) individual differences under load, (4) alternative theories and criticisms, and (5) the future of load theory. We argue that the key next step for load theory will be the application of the model to real-world tasks. The potential benefits of applied attention research are numerous, and there is tentative evidence that applied research would provide strong support for the theory itself, as well as real-world benefits related to activities in which attention is crucial, such as driving and education.Keywords Selective attention . Perception . Perceptual load . Load theory . Distraction . Visual attention Selective attention is the ability to focus on that which is important to the task at hand while ignoring or suppressing task-irrelevant information. A key question that has fuelled much debate and research in psychology is how, and crucially when, this irrelevant information is filtered out. For example, while reading this article the reader may be surrounded by many potential distractors, such as the noise of a fly buzzing around the room. Given the top-down goal of reading this article, how much information is available to you about the fly? Can the processing of irrelevant stimuli be reduced or even prevented by internal or external factors? The inability to ignore distractors is a common experience in daily life, and though it may at times have minor consequences, such as extending the length of time it takes to read an article, in other situations lapses of attention may have far more serious consequences (e.g., in healthcare situations, or while operating heavy machinery). Perceptual load theory (Lavie, 1995(Lavie, , 2005(Lavie, , 2010Lavie & Tsal, 1994) suggests that the success or failure of selective attention is dependent on the processing demands of the current task. That is, the level of perceptual load as well as any cognitive load will determine the efficiency of distractor rejection. This theory has been hugely influential over the last 20 years,

show abstract

“…For example, physically salient distracters can fail to capture attention when presented outside the current focus of attention (Belopolsky, Zwaan, Theeuwes, & Kramer, 2007) and, under some conditions, when presented at completely task-irrelevant locations (Johnson, McGrath, & McNeil, 2002;Sy, Guerin, Stegman, & Giesbrecht, 2014). There is evidence of a similar effect with value-driven capture.…”

Section: Value-driven Capturementioning

confidence: 99%

Irrelevant learned reward associations disrupt voluntary spatial attention

MacLean

Diaz

Giesbrecht

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention can be guided involuntarily by physical salience and by non-salient, previously learned reward associations that are currently task-irrelevant. Attention can be guided voluntarily by current goals and expectations. The current study examined, in two experiments, whether irrelevant reward associations could disrupt current, goal-driven, voluntary attention. In a letter-search task, attention was directed voluntarily (i.e., cued) on half the trials by a cue stimulus indicating the hemifield in which the target letter would appear with 100 % accuracy. On the other half of the trials, a cue stimulus was presented, but it did not provide information about the target hemifield (i.e., uncued). On both cued and uncued trials, attention could be involuntarily captured by the presence of a task-irrelevant, and physically non-salient, color, either within the cued or the uncued hemifield. Importantly, one week prior to the letter search task, the irrelevant color had served as a target feature that was predictive of reward in a separate training task. Target identification accuracy was better on cued compared to uncued trials. However, this effect was reduced when the irrelevant, and physically non-salient, reward-associated feature was present in the uncued hemifield. This effect was not observed in a second, control experiment in which the irrelevant color was not predictive of reward during training. Our results indicate that involuntary, value-driven capture can disrupt the voluntary control of spatial attention.Keywords Attention: Selective . Attentional capture . Cognitive and attentional controlOver the course of Steve Yantis' career, he was consistently at the leading edge of efforts to understand the perceptual, cognitive, and neural mechanisms that mediate the control of visual attention (e.g., Greenberg, Esterman, Wilson, et al.,

show abstract

Accurate expectancies diminish perceptual distraction during visual search

Cited by 9 publications

References 97 publications

Expect to neglect: Cross-modal resource allocation in anticipation of visual load

Expect to neglect: Cross-modal resource allocation in anticipation of visual load

Twenty years of load theory—Where are we now, and where should we go next?

Irrelevant learned reward associations disrupt voluntary spatial attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About