The perceptual and cognitive distractor-previewing effect

Ariga, Atsunori; Kawahara, Jun‐ichiro

doi:10.1167/4.10.5

Cited by 37 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A consistent finding from this work is that search efficiency increases with target repetition (see Kristjánsson, 2006, for a review). More pertinent to the present discussion, such repetition benefits have also been reported recently for distractors (Ariga & Kawahara, 2004;Geyer, Müller, & Krummenacher, 2006;Kristjáns-son & Driver, 2008;Lleras, Kawahara, Wan, & Ariga, 2008). For example, Kristjánsson and Driver found faster search times when a given distractor type appeared on successive trials than when the distractors differed.…”

supporting

confidence: 81%

A new look at novelty effects: Guiding search away from old distractors

Yang

Chen

Zelinsky

2009

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined whether search is guided to novel distractors. In Experiment 1, subjects searched for a target among one new and a variable number of old distractors. Search displays in Experiment 2 consisted of an equal number of new, old, and familiar distractors (the latter repeated occasionally). We found that eye movements were preferentially directed to a new distractor on target-absent trials and that subjects tended to immediately fixate a new distractor after leaving the target on target-present trials. In both cases, first fixations on old distractors were consistently less frequent than could be explained by chance. We interpret these patterns as evidence for negative guidance: Subjects learn the visual features associated with the set of old distractors and then guide their search away from these features, ultimately resulting in the preferential fixation of novel distractors.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 81%

A new look at novelty effects: Guiding search away from old distractors

Yang

Chen

Zelinsky

2009

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, if an irrelevant prime distractor is repeated as a target in the subsequent probe display (distractor-to-target repetition), responses are typically slowed down, because the internal stimulus representation still suffers from inhibition (Neill, 1977;Tipper, 1985). Similar negative effects of distractor-to-target repetitions have also been reported in the visual search literature (socalled "distractor previewing effects," "role reversal effects," or "switching effects"; Ariga & Kawahara, 2004;Lamy, Antebi, Aviani, & Carmel, 2008;Levinthal & Lleras, 2008;Yashar & Lamy, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

Differences in the strength of distractor inhibition do not affect distractor–response bindings

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distractor inhibition and distractor-response binding were investigated in two experiments by analyzing distractor repetition benefits and their interaction with response repetition effects in a sequential-priming paradigm. Distractor repetition benefits were larger for distractors that were incompatible with the to-be-executed response (task-related distractors) than for distractors that were not assigned to a response (neutral distractors), indicating that the strength of distractor inhibition was a function of response interference for the distractors. In contrast, the distractor-response bindings were found to be of equal strength for both task-related and neutral distractors. Thus, differences in the strengths of distractor inhibition did not affect the integration of distractors with responses into event files. Instead, our results suggest that distractor-response binding and distractor inhibition are independent mechanisms that are recruited for the automatization of behavior and action control.

show abstract

“…However, there are also intertrial effects driven by distractors, known as the colorsalience aftereffect (Goolsby, Grabowecky, & Suzuki, 2005) and the distractor preview effect (Ariga & Kawahara, 2004;Lleras, Kawahara, Wan, & Ariga, 2008). In those studies, the color oddball pop-out task trials were interspersed with target-absent trials, which consisted of three same-colored items (i.e., all distractors).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, repetition of a big red target coactivates features for red and big. If a small red target appears after the repetition of a big red target, red carries weakly over to the next trial, if at all, because the other feature (size) mismatches; the targets across these two trials are et al showed that the distractor preview aftereffect is present only if the task requires focal attention (see also Goolsby et al, 2005, andKawahara, 2004, for a perceptual-suppression account of this aftereffect). The difference between the present results and these aftereffects might be that the present results showed a positive attentional bias to the attended item and the aftereffect tasks show a negative attentional bias to the attended item.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of priming of pop-out: Stored representations or feature-gain modulations?

Lee

Mozer

Vecera

2009

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that repetition of a task-relevant attention-capturing feature facilitates popout search. This priming of pop-out effect is due to some residual memory from recent trials. We explore two possible mechanisms of priming of pop-out: a top-down attentional benefit from a memory of the previous target representation that is stored in visual short-term memory (VSTM) and a bottom-up change of attentional gains from perceptual features of the previously attended target. We manipulated participants' ability to form a memory trace in VSTM by occupying it with a distractor task and found that occupying VSTM did not interfere with priming of pop-out. We next manipulated attentional gains associated with feature values by inserting an irrelevant task between pop-out searches. We found that the color of the target from the intervening perceptual task influenced pop-out search: The current pop-out search was facilitated when the intervening task's target matched the target color of the pop-out search. These results suggest that priming of pop-out might not be due to a memory trace of the previous targets in VSTM but, rather, might be due to changes in attentional control based on priming from relatively low-level feature representations of previously attended objects.

show abstract

The perceptual and cognitive distractor-previewing effect

Cited by 37 publications

References 20 publications

A new look at novelty effects: Guiding search away from old distractors

A new look at novelty effects: Guiding search away from old distractors

Differences in the strength of distractor inhibition do not affect distractor–response bindings

Mechanisms of priming of pop-out: Stored representations or feature-gain modulations?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About