Cuing Interacts with Perceptual Load in Visual Search

Abstract

We tested the strong form of the perceptual-load hypothesis, which posits that the amount of perceptual load is the only factor determining whether attention can be effectively focused. Participants performed a visual search task under conditions of low and high load and with either a 100% valid spatial cue or no spatial cue. With no cue, participants showed evidence of processing to-be-ignored stimuli when perceptual load was low but not when it was high, consistent with the perceptual-load hypothesis. However with a 100% valid spatial cue, participants showed little evidence of processing to-be-ignored stimuli, even when perceptual load was low. These results suggest that although perceptual load may be an important factor in attentional selectivity, load alone is not sufficient to explain how and when selective attention is effective.

Identifying visual targets amongst interfering distractors: Sorting out the roles of perceptual load, dilution, and attentional zoom

“…According to PLT, cuing the target location should make nontargets irrelevant and reduce PL, and thus PLT predicts that the distractor will be attended more and will therefore interfere with the response more. Instead, however, the target cue eliminated most of the interference; a result consistent with Johnson et al (2002) and Paquet and Lortie (1990). Cuing the distractor, on the other hand, led to more distractor interference.…”

“…A valid precue indicating the location of the target eliminates the PL effect (Chen & Cave, 2013Johnson, McGrath, & McNeil, 2002;Miller, 1991;Paquet & Craig, 1997), as does confining the relevant and irrelevant information to the same object or spatial region (Chen, 2003;Taya et al, 2009), or prolonging the duration of the target display until response (Roper, Cosman, Mordkoff, & Vecera, 2011;. A distractor or nontargets that are in the same hemisphere as the target will reduce distractor processing compared to a distractor or nontargets in different hemispheres (Torralbo & Beck, 2008;Wei, Kang, & Zhou, 2013).…”

Attentional set interacts with perceptual load in visual search

“…In lowload conditions, selective attention fails, except under ideal spatial-cuing conditions (Johnson et al, 2002). Furthermore, in low-load conditions, expectancies appear to play little role, and processing is driven in a bottom-up manner.…”

“…Recently, however, employing the same paradigm as Lavie and Cox (1997), Johnson et al (2002) showed that topdown control can override interference by irrelevant distractors in a low-load condition. Johnson et al used an advance spatial cuing procedure and showed that, under conditions of focused attention, there was little evidence of the processing of irrelevant distractors even when processing load was low (Theeuwes, 1991;Yantis & Jonides, 1990).…”

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

“…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.…”