Response, rather than target detection, triggers the attentional boost effect in visual search.

Abstract

Detecting a target in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) stream is more attentionally demanding than rejecting a distractor. However, background scenes coinciding with RSVP targets are better remembered than those coinciding with RSVP distractors, a paradoxical finding known as the attentional boost effect. But does the effect originate from the detection of the RSVP target or from the need to respond to it? To dissociate target detection from response, we investigated the attentional boost effect using a visual search task. Participants searched for a target among distractors while memorizing concurrently presented background objects. The search target could be present or absent. In different experiments, participants pressed a button on target-present trials only, target-absent trials only, or made a two-choice present/absent response. Results showed that objects paired with a Go response were better remembered than objects paired with a No-Go response, regardless of whether responses were associated with targetpresent or target-absent trials. This finding was replicated in experiments that required covert counting rather than an immediate button press response. These findings are the first to extend the attentional boost effect to visual search and demonstrate that the need to respond, not the detection of a search target, drives the effect for concurrently presented stimuli. Public Significance StatementDetecting and responding to behaviorally relevant events produces a transient temporal orienting response, which enhances the processing of concurrent stimuli. But what triggers this attentional boost? Previous studies investigating this effect have often confounded target detection with response. This study dissociates target detection from response using a visual search task. Results showed that response, rather than target detection, induces the attentional boost. The findings not only enrich theories about the attentional boost effect but also highlight the importance of response in modulating attention. They shed light on how people attend to behaviorally relevant moments (e.g., traffic lights changing color) in tasks like driving.

Grounding the Attentional Boost Effect in Events and the Efficient Brain

“…The ABE thus appears to originate from the decision to respond to a cue or stimulus. We agree with Toh and Lee (2022) that the DTI model should be updated to better highlight the role of the response in the ABE rather than of a target. But, what exactly is a response?…”

“…Moreover, in another study, the presence of a target was dissociated from the button press by telling participants to press a button only when there was no target on the screen. Under these conditions, memory for images that were paired with a target was impaired (Toh and Lee, 2022). This suggests that partial or full matching of items to a target stimulus is not sufficient for producing the ABE.…”

“…However, overt action is neither necessary nor sufficient for the ABE. Several studies have demonstrated that memory for items is enhanced when they coincide with a target that is covertly counted Mulligan et al, 2016;Swallow et al, 2019;Toh and Lee, 2022), or whose identity is reported several seconds later (e.g., they name the white letter in a string of black letters; Lin et al, 2010). Furthermore, overt action in and of itself is not sufficient to enhance memory.…”

Auditory Target Detection Enhances Visual Processing and Hippocampal Functional Connectivity

“…In the encoding and detection task, target detection differs from distractor rejection in both cognitive and motor demands. However, the effects of target detection on activity in visual cortex, pupil responses, and memory can occur in the absence of an overt motor response and are absent when motor responses are self-generated ( Jack et al, 2006 ; Swallow and Jiang, 2012 ; Swallow et al, 2012 , 2019 ; Makovski et al, 2013 ; Mulligan et al, 2016 ; Toh and Lee, 2022 ). In this study, behavioral inhibition in the distractor tone condition also did not lower BOLD magnitude or classification accuracy relative to the baseline, arguing against the possibility of a disruptive effect of response inhibition on processing (as in inhibition-induced forgetting, which has been tied to fluctuations in ventrolateral PFC activity, which were not found here; Chiu and Egner, 2015 ).…”

Auditory Target Detection Enhances Visual Processing and Hippocampal Functional Connectivity

“…In the encoding and detection task, target detection differs from distractor rejection in both cognitive and motor demands. However, the effects of target detection on activity in visual cortex, pupil responses, and memory can occur in the absence of an overt motor response and are absent when motor responses are self-generated (Jack et al, 2006; Mulligan, et al, 2016; Swallow & Jiang, 2012; Swallow et al, 2012; Makovski et al, 2013; Swallow et al, 2019; Toh & Lee, 2022). In this study behavioral inhibition in the distractor tone condition also did not lower BOLD magnitude or classification accuracy relative to the baseline, arguing against the possibility of a disruptive effect of response inhibition on processing (as in inhibition-induced forgetting, which has been tied to fluctuations in ventrolateral PFC activity, which were not found here; Chiu & Egner, 2015).…”