Evidence for negative feature guidance in visual search is explained by spatial recoding.

Abstract

Theories of attention and visual search explain how attention is guided toward objects with known target features. But can attention be directed away from objects with a feature known to be associated only with distractors? Most studies have found that the demand to maintain the to-be-avoided feature in visual working memory biases attention toward matching objects rather than away from them. In contrast, Arita, Carlisle, and Woodman (2012) claimed that attention can be configured to selectively avoid objects that match a cued distractor color, and they reported evidence that this type of negative cue generates search benefits. However, the colors of the search array items in Arita et al. were segregated by hemifield (e.g., blue items on the left, red on the right), which allowed for a strategy of translating the feature-cue information into a simple spatial template (e.g., avoid right, or attend left). In the present study, we replicated the negative cue benefit using the Arita et al. method (albeit within a subset of participants who reliably used the color cues to guide attention). Then, we eliminated the benefit by using search arrays that could not be grouped by hemifield. Our results suggest that feature-guided avoidance is implemented only indirectly, in this case by translating feature-cue information into a spatial template.

Out of sight, out of mind: Matching bias underlies confirmatory visual search

“…This is consistent with the finding that the presentation of verbal labels of objects speeds their entry in to awareness (Lupyan & Ward, 2013) and orients attention (Spivey, Tyler, Eberhard, & Tanenhaus, 2001), as well as findings that visually specific templates guide attention better than more abstract templates (Hout & Goldinger, 2014;Maxfield & Zelinsky 2012;Vickery et al, 2005). Furthermore, it is consistent with findings that negative information tends not to guide attention in visual search (Beck & Hollingworth, 2015;Becker, Hemsteger, & Peltier, 2016;Moher & Egeth, 2012).…”

Implicitly learned suppression of irrelevant spatial locations

“…Much like the impossibility of complying with a request to not think of a white bear, some have argued that trial-by-trial adjustments of spatial suppression can only be achieved reactively (Moher & Egeth, 2012;Tsal & Makovski, 2006). Note that distractors in those studies were defined based on features rather than locations (see Anderson & Folk, 2012;Beck & Hollingworth, 2015). Here, probe identificationresults from Experiment 2 areconsistent with trial-by-trial shifts in proactive suppression.…”

Taming the White Bear

“…Therefore, it does not appear that participants acquired a template for rejection, contrary to the findings of Arita et al (2012). However, as Beck and Hollingworth (2015) point out, the inhibitory benefit found by Arita et al (2012) was very likely supported by the fact that participants could rely on a simple spatial template. This was because all of the to-be-ignored items in their study were grouped in one hemifield, while the other items were located in the opposite hemifield.…”