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

Abstract

Observers find a target item more quickly when they have foreknowledge of target-defining attributes, such as identity, color, or location. However, it is less clear whether foreknowledge of nontarget attributes can also speed search. Munneke, Van der Stigchel, and Theeuwes Acta Psychologica 129:101-107, (2008) found that observers found the target more quickly when they were cued to ignore a region of space where a target would not appear. Using a similar paradigm, we explored the effects of cueing nontarget features on search. We found that when we cued observers to ignore nontarget features, search was slowed. The results from a probe-dot detection task revealed that this slowing occurred because, paradoxically, observers initially selected an item appearing in the to-be-ignored color. Finally, we found that cueing nontarget features sped search when placeholders matching the location of the to-beignored color preceded presentation of the search display by at least 800 ms; thus, it appears that some limited inhibition of to-be-ignored items occurs following selection. Taken together, these results suggest that observers are unable to explicitly avoid selection of items matching known nontarget features. Instead, when nontarget features are cued, observers select the to-be-ignored feature or the locations of objects matching that feature early in search, and only inhibit them after this selection process.

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

“…One question frequently asked of studies claiming spatial suppression is whether such suppression can be established in advance (i.e., proactively), or if it instead reflects a more rapid, reactive disengagement (see Geng, 2014). 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).…”

“…However, one alternative is that participants did not use suppression but rather slowed responses on distractorinvalid trials due to an expectancy violation. A related alternative is that participants strategically enhanced the predicted distractor location, to process and subsequently overcome its interference more rapidly (see, e.g., Moher & Egeth, 2012;Tsal & Makovski, 2006). Experiment 2 tested these possibilities by introducing occasional masked probes after the cue at one of the four display locations.…”

Expect the unexpected: a paradoxical effect of cue validity on the orienting of attention

“…A number of studies have demonstrated top-down inhibitory effects in central cueing tasks where targets are presented with distractor stimuli (Chao, 2010;Lahav, Makovski, & Tsal, 2012;Moher & Egeth, 2012;Munneke, van der Stigchel, & Theeuwes, 2008;Tsal & Makovski, 2006). In these studies, cues that signal the location of a distractor facilitate the processing of a target presented elsewhere.…”