Competition in saccade target selection reveals attentional guidance by simultaneously active working memory representations.

Ignoring distracting information is critical for effective visual search. When individuals are cued to ignore a stimulus, they first attend the to-be-ignored stimulus before learning to reject it. Individuals can learn to overcome the initial distraction produced by the explicit cues, although this cued distractor rejection appears for only one distractor feature. Multiple distractor colors cannot be rejected effectively, even with extensive experience. We asked if this apparent limit on distractor rejection was caused by a restriction on the number of different features (i.e., colors) that could be learned and rejected as distractors. To explore this potential capacity limitation, we asked if attention can learn to reject the smallest possible number of multiple distractors, namely, two. In four experiments examining cued distractor rejection, individuals searched through heterogeneously colored arrays containing reliable, non-target color information. In Experiments 1 and 2, we explicitly cued individuals with which of two colors (both colors in Experiment 1 or one color in Experiment 2) could be safely ignored. Cued distractors were not reliably rejected, replicating previous findings. Additionally, in Experiment 2, we presented a to-be-ignored color without explicit cues and we found that these Buncued^distractors were reliably rejected. In Experiments 3 and 4, we presented the to-be-ignored color information without explicit cues; individuals learned to reliably ignore multiple distractor colors without explicit cueing. These results suggest that learned distractor rejection is better suited to experience-driven learning than explicitly cued distractor learning: Explicit cueing reliably interferes with learned distractor rejection.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Learned and cued distractor rejection for multiple features in visual search

Stilwell

Vecera

2018

“…Error bars represent the upper limit of the within-subjects 95% confidence intervals (Morey, 2008) consuming, but that the process can start earlier than in the case of reactive control. Interestingly, whereas we found slight switch costs even when both targets were available, Beck and Hollingworth (2017) found no switch costs in one of their conditions even when only one target was available-despite their experiment being quite similar to ours. In this condition, observers were asked to fixate a target drawn from a set of two alternatives, in which on each trial a single target was presented together with a distractor.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

“…Depending on the time that such preparation takes, switch costs should be reduced or absent, as compared to the case of reactive control. As we argued earlier (Ort et al, 2017), the idea of a role for proactive control when observers can prepare for any one target, because all targets are always available anyway, may also explain the earlier findings of a lack of switch costs during multiple-target search (Beck & Hollingworth, 2017;Beck, Hollingworth, & Luck, 2012). We note as well here that preparing the search does not need to be a deliberate, willful act.…”

mentioning

confidence: 63%

Lack of free choice reveals the cost of multiple-target search within and across feature dimensions

Ort

Olivers

2018

Having to look for multiple targets typically results in switch costs. However, using a gaze-contingent eyetracking paradigm with multiple color-defined targets, we have recently shown that the emergence of switch costs depends on whether observers can choose a target or a target is being imposed upon them. Here, using a similar paradigm, we tested whether these findings generalize to the situation in which targets are specified across different feature dimensions. We instructed participants to simultaneously search for, and then fixate, either of two possible targets presented among distractors. The targets were defined as either two colors, two shapes, or one color and one shape. In one condition, only one of the two targets was available in each display, so that the choice was imposed. In the other condition, both targets would be present in each display, which gave observers free choice over what to search for. Consistent with our earlier findings, switch costs emerged when targets were imposed, whereas no switch costs emerged when target selection was free, irrespective of the dimension in which the targets were defined. The results are consistent with the operation of different modes of control in multiple-target search, with switch costs emerging whenever reactive control is required and being reduced or absent when displays allow for proactive control.

“…An additional interpretation centers on the recent challenge to the idea that only one item in memory can guide attention at a time. A number of recent papers provide evidence that two representations may simultaneously bias attention during visual search (Bahle, Beck, & Hollingworth, in press;Beck & Hollingworth, 2017;Chen & Du, 2017). By this account, exacerbated attentional capture in both the highpriority match and the low-priority match distractor conditions are a consequence of both items acting as a template guiding search.…”

Section: The Distinction Between Prioritizing For Recall and For Tempmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinct prioritization of visual working memory representations for search and for recall

Dube

Al-Aidroos

2019

Despite the inherent limitations of visual working memory (VWM), it effectively supports numerous everyday behaviors − capabilities that are due, in part, to its flexibility. An observer can flexibly prioritize VWM representations to support at least two behavioral outcomes: An item can be prioritized to enhance its representational quality, thereby enhancing recall precision, and an item can be granted Btemplate status,^allowing it to bias attention during visual search, speeding search for matching targets.Here we examined the relationship between these two forms of prioritization. Research has shown that a byproduct of granting an item template status is that its precision is enhanced; however, it is unclear if the inverse is also true: Does prioritizing an item for enhanced representational quality cause that item to bias attention? In the present study, participants remembered the colors of two squares for a subsequent recall task, and one was cued, indicating it was 80% likely to be the target of the memory test. To assess template status, a subset of trials ended in a visual search task in which a colored singleton distractor matched the color of the cued item in memory, the non-cued item, or an unrelated color. We found that, although the cue was effective at enhancing recall precision of the cued item, it had no systematic effect on which of the two memory items was granted template status. Thus, we conclude that the two forms of prioritization in VWM − prioritization for recall and for search − are distinct.