Attentional capture by salient color singleton distractors is modulated by top-down dimensional set.

Abstract

Three experiments examined whether salient color singleton distractors automatically interfere with the detection singleton form targets in visual search (e.g., J. Theeuwes, 1992), or whether the degree of interference is top-down modulable. In Experiments 1 and 2, observers started with a pure block of trials, which contained either never a distractor or always a distractor (0% or 100% distractors)--varying the opportunity to learn distractor suppression. In the subsequent trial blocks, the proportion of distractors was systematically varied (within-subjects factor in Experiment 1, between-subjects factor in Experiment 2)--varying the incentive to use distractor suppression. In Experiment 3, observers started with 100% distractors in the first block and were presented with "rare" color or luminance distractors, in addition to "frequent" color distractors, in the second block. The results revealed distractor interference to vary as a function of both the initial experience with distractors and the incentive to suppress them: the interference was larger without relevant practice and with a lesser incentive to apply suppression (Experiments 1-3). This set of findings suggests that distractor interference is top-down modulable.

The ignoring paradox: Cueing distractor features leads first to selection, then to inhibition of to-be-ignored items

“…In Tsal and Makovski's (2006) study, there were no significant changes in overall response times or accuracy when attentional resources were devoted to expected distractor locations. Therefore, the present data show that access to explicit information about nontarget properties is surprisingly detrimental, because "search and destroy" can be a slow, counterproductive process (though foreknowledge of salient distractor probability may be an exception; see, e.g., Moher, Abrams, Egeth, Yantis, & Stuphorn, 2011;Müller, Geyer, Zehetleitner, & Krummenacher, 2009). …”

Capture by colour: Evidence for dimension-specific singleton capture

“…Recent findings suggest that this is a plausible explanation (Folk & Remington, 2007;Geyer, Müller, & Krummenacher, 2008;Müller, Geyer, Zehetleitner, & Krummenacher, 2009;Neo & Chua, 2006). For example, Folk and Remington (2007) had participants search for a colour target and presented a colour or onset cue prior to each target.…”

Contrasting reactive and proactive control of emotional distraction.

“…Even more striking distractor frequency effects can be seen in a visual search paradigm in which a salient distractor singleton is presented on a proportion of trials. Geyer and colleagues (Geyer, Müller & Krummenacher, 2008) report that salient singletons cause distraction when they appear on 20% or 50% of trials, but distraction is completely eliminated when they appear on 80% of trials, despite the singletons being more salient than the target (Müller et al, 2009). Finally, in a set of spatial cueing experiments, distractors in unattended locations slowed responses when they appeared rarely (on less than 20% of trials) but not when they appeared frequently (on 75% of trials; Neo & Chua, 2006).…”

“…Emotional distractions plague us all, and in disorders such as depression, anxiety, and addiction, they can be overwhelming (Cisler & Koster, 2010;De Raedt & Koster, 2010;Field & Cox, 2008). Non-emotional distractors are known to disrupt performance (Forster & Lavie, 2008a,2008b, but they can also be controlled if we know to expect them (Braver, 2012;Müller, Geyer, Zehetleitner & Krummenacher, 2009) Can we ever control emotional distractions as effectively as those that are more mundane? …”