Salient Singleton Research Articles

Working memory load does not interfere with distractor suppression in the additional singleton task.

Over the last decade, the additional singleton task has been widely used to study visual statistical learning. In this paradigm, participants are instructed to find a target while ignoring a series of distractors. In some trials, a salient singleton distractor is added to the search display, making the task more difficult. However, if the singleton appears more frequently in one particular location of the display, participants eventually learn to suppress attention towards this location. It has been suggested that this type of learning is probably implicit and independent of working memory (WM) resources. To our knowledge, only one study has explored the impact of WM in suppression effect (Gao & Theeuwes, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 96-104, 2020). However, there are reasons to suspect that the amount and type of WM load used in that study may have been suboptimal to detect any effects on distractor suppression. The aim of the present study was to explore the impact of WM load on distractor suppression addressing these issues. Contrary to our expectations, our results confirm that this type of learning is indeed highly resilient even to strong manipulations of WM load.

How we learn to ignore singleton distractors: Suppressing saliency signals or specific features?

ABSTRACT Salient visual information can sometimes capture attention despite our goals. However, there are several ways we can minimize or eliminate such distraction. One such way is learned distractor rejection, in which we increasingly ignore salient, irrelevant distractors across repeated exposures. Here, we probe the mechanism underlying this learned rejection. What must be learned about the distractor to promote effective ignoring? Specifically, is feature rejection, alone, sufficient to ignore salient distractors, or do the items' saliency signals need to also be rejected? We used a modified version of the learned distractor rejection paradigm (Vatterott & Vecera, 2012) in which participants viewed training blocks containing either a salient singleton distractor or three non-salient “tripleton” distractors, followed by test blocks in which the distractor shared a feature (color) with the corresponding training blocks, but was always salient. Results revealed unexpected difficulties in replicating learned distractor rejection, suggesting the true effect size may be smaller than initially reported. With respect to our main objective, we found similar attenuation of singleton presence costs in the test blocks regardless of whether they followed singleton or tripleton training blocks. These results show that experience in rejecting saliency signals is not a requirement of learned distractor rejection.

When detecting a salient target makes search more effortful.

Prior research has demonstrated two distinct modes of searching a display: singleton detection mode and feature search mode. Due to the explicit template-based attentional control involved in feature search mode, singleton detection mode is often assumed to be less mentally effortful, which can potentially explain why people search using such an inefficient and distraction-prone strategy. However, this assumption remains largely untested. In the present study, we used a hand dynamometer to relate physical effort to perceived mental effort across different search conditions. Surprisingly, across three experiments, participants exerted more effort to avoid singleton detection trials compared to feature search trials, suggesting that they found singleton detection to be the more effortful mode of searching. In a fourth experiment, we removed the physical effort component and simply asked participants to self-report how effortful they perceived each search task to be. Participants robustly indicated that singleton detection trials were more effortful. Lastly, in a fifth experiment, we removed distractor-present trials. Again, participants exerted more effort to avoid singleton detection trials. In contrast to widely held assumptions, our findings suggest that searching for a salient singleton is in fact more mentally effortful than searching for a specific feature in a heterogeneous display, which has broad implications for theories of attentional control and the influence of mental effort on cognition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Delayed onsets are not necessary for generating distractor quitting thresholds effects in visual search.

Salient distractors lower quitting thresholds in visual search. That is, when searching for the presence of a target among filler items, a large heterogeneously coloured distractor presented at a delayed onset produces quick target-absent judgements and increased target-present errors. The aim of the current study was to explore if the timing of the salient distractor modulates this Quitting Threshold Effect (QTE). In Experiment 1, participants completed a target detection search task in the presence or absence of a salient singleton distractor that either appeared simultaneously with other search items or appeared at a delayed onset (i.e., 100 ms or 250 ms after other array items appeared). In Experiment 2, a similar method was used, except that the salient singleton distractor appeared simultaneously, 100 ms before, or 100 ms after the other array items. Across both experiments, we observed robust distractor QTEs. Regardless of their onset, salient distractors decreased target-absent search speeds and increased target-present error rates. In all, the present findings suggest that delayed onsets are not required for lowered quitting thresholds in visual search.

The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and When Not?

There has been a long-standing debate concerning whether we are able to resist attention capture by salient distractors. The so-called "signal suppression hypothesis" of Gaspelin and Luck (2018) claimed to have resolved this debate. According to this view, salient stimuli "naturally attempt to capture attention", yet attention capture may be prevented by a top-down inhibitory mechanism. The current paper describes the conditions in which attention capture by salient distractors can be avoided. Capture by salient items can be avoided when the target is non-salient and therefore difficult to find. Because fine discrimination is needed, a small attentional window is adapted resulting in serial (or partly serial) search. Salient signals outside the focused attentional window do not capture attention anymore not because they are suppressed but because they are ignored. We argue that in studies that have provided evidence for signal suppression, search was likely serial or at least partly serial. When the target is salient, search will be conducted in parallel, and in those cases the salient singleton cannot be ignored nor suppressed but instead will capture attention. We argue that the "signal suppression" account (Gaspelin & Luck, 2018) that seeks to explain resistance to attentional capture has many parallels to classic visual search models such as the "feature integration theory" (Treisman & Gelade, 1980), "feature inhibition" account (Treisman & Sato, 1990), and "guided search" (Wolfe et al, 1989); all models that explain how the serial deployment of attention is guided by the output of earlier parallel processes.

The role of salience in the suppression of distracting stimuli.

Researchers have long debated whether salient distractors have the power to automatically capture attention. Recent research has suggested a potential resolution, called the signal suppression hypothesis, whereby salient distractors produce a bottom-up salience signal, but can be suppressed to prevent visual distraction. This account, however, has been criticized on the grounds that previous studies may have used distractors that were only weakly salient. This claim has been difficult to empirically test because there are currently no well-established measures of salience. The current study addresses this by introducing a psychophysical technique to measure salience. First, we generated displays that aimed to manipulate the salience of two color singletons via color contrast. We then verified that this manipulation was successful using a psychophysical technique to determine the minimum exposure duration required to detect each color singleton. The key finding was that high-contrast singletons were detected at briefer exposure thresholds than low-contrast singletons, suggesting that high-contrast singletons were more salient. Next, we evaluated the participants' ability to ignore these singletons in a task in which they were task irrelevant. The results showed that, if anything, high-salience singletons were more strongly suppressed than low-salience singletons. These results generally support the signal suppression hypothesis and refute claims that highly salient singletons cannot be ignored.

Feature-blind attentional suppression of salient distractors.

A recent paper has reported, for the first time, that people are capable of suppressing salient singleton distractors of unknown color if the search task requires them to search for the most prevalent of several shapes in the display. We identify here several potential limitations of the earlier findings. In particular, in the reported experiments, the likelihood of a salient distractor was higher than what is typically studied, the distractor object was similar in shape to the relevant objects, only two colors were studied, the distractor was consistently a fixed shape, and the distractor was always a unique shape different from the search targets. Each of these limitations leaves open some questions about the generality of the findings. We address each of the concerns here, and show, in five experiments, that the ability to suppress distractors of unknown color is a robust finding that is not compromised by the potential limitations identified. When searching for the most prevalent of several shapes in a display, people can indeed suppress capture by otherwise-salient color singleton distractors even when their color is not known in advance (i.e., in a feature-blind manner), facilitating efficient search. The experiments confirm the ability to suppress visual elements based on second-order (e.g., a unique color) or global salience information, and not merely based on first-order (e.g., a specific color) information.

On the role of top-down and bottom-up guidance in conjunction search: Singleton interference revisited

The current study reassessed the potential of salient singleton distractors to interfere in conjunction search. Experiment 1 investigated conjunctions of colour and orientation, using densely packed arrays that produced highly efficient search. The results demonstrated clear interference effects of singleton distractors in task-relevant dimensions colour and orientation, but no interference from those in a task-irrelevant dimension (motion). Goals exerted an influence in constraining this interference such that the singleton interference along one dimension was modulated by target relevance along the other task relevant dimension. Colour singleton interference was much stronger when the singleton shared the target orientation, and orientation interference was much stronger when the orientation singleton shared the target colour. Experiments 2 and 3 examined singleton-distractor interference in feature search. The results showed strong interference particularly from task-relevant dimensions but a reduced role for top-down, feature-based modulation of singleton interference, compared with conjunction search. The results are consistent with a model of conjunction search based on core elements of the guided search and dimension weighting approaches, whereby weighted dimensional feature contrast signals are combined with top-down feature guidance signals in a feature-independent map that serves to guide search.

Does superior visual working memory capacity enable greater distractor suppression?

ABSTRACT We asked whether individuals high in working memory capacity have a superior ability to proactively suppress features. If so, it would help explain why these individuals are more resistant to attention capture. We tested this hypothesis using the capture-probe paradigm employed in Lien et al. (2022. On preventing attention capture: Is singleton suppression actually singleton suppression? Psychological Research, 86(6), 1958–1971). Participants (N = 112) performed a colour change detection task, assessing visual working memory capacity. They then performed a visual search task (70% of the trials) intermixed with probe tasks (30% of the trials). For the visual search task, either a salient colour singleton distractor or non-salient distractor (a triplet) appeared with the target object. For the probe recall task, participants reported probe letters that briefly appeared inside each object. Replicating Lien et al., a suppression effect on probe recall accuracy was observed for both salient singletons and non-salient triplets. Critically, high and low visual working memory capacity individuals showed statistically equivalent ability to suppress colour distractors. These findings suggest that proactive suppression is not the mechanism by which high-capacity individuals achieve greater resistance to capture. Proactive suppression may be an implicit process that does not require special working memory capabilities.

Electrophysiological Evidence for the Suppression of Highly Salient Distractors.

There has been a longstanding debate as to whether salient stimuli have the power to involuntarily capture attention. As a potential resolution to this debate, the signal suppression hypothesis proposes that salient items generate a bottom-up signal that automatically attracts attention, but that salient items can be suppressed by top-down mechanisms to prevent attentional capture. Despite much support, the signal suppression hypothesis has been challenged on the grounds that many prior studies may have used color singletons with relatively low salience that are too weak to capture attention. The current study addressed this by using previous methods to study suppression but increased the set size to improve the relative salience of the color singletons. To assess whether salient distractors captured attention, electrophysiological markers of attentional allocation (the N2pc component) and suppression (the PD component) were measured. The results provided no evidence of attentional capture, but instead indicated suppression of the highly salient singleton distractors, as indexed by the PD component. This suppression occurred even though a computational model of saliency confirmed that the color singleton was highly salient. Altogether, this supports the signal suppression hypothesis and is inconsistent with stimulus-driven models of attentional capture.

Spatial suppression due to statistical regularities in a visual detection task

Increasing evidence demonstrates that observers can learn the likely location of salient singleton distractors during visual search. To date, the reduced attentional capture at high-probability distractor locations has typically been examined using so called compound search, in which by design a target is always present. Here, we explored whether statistical distractor learning can also be observed in a visual detection task, in which participants respond target present if the singleton target is present and respond target absent when the singleton target is absent. If so, this allows us to examine suppression of the location that is likely to contain a distractor both in the presence, but critically also in the absence, of a priority signal generated by the target singleton. In an online variant of the additional singleton paradigm, observers had to indicate whether a unique shape was present or absent, while ignoring a colored singleton, which appeared with a higher probability in one specific location. We show that attentional capture was reduced, but not absent, at high-probability distractor locations, irrespective of whether the display contained a target or not. By contrast, target processing at the high-probability distractor location was selectively impaired on distractor-present displays. Moreover, all suppressive effects were characterized by a gradient such that suppression scaled with the distance to the high-probability distractor location. We conclude that statistical distractor learning can be examined in visual detection tasks, and discuss the implications for attentional suppression due to statistical learning.

On preventing attention capture: Is singleton suppression actually singleton suppression?

It is commonly assumed that salient singletons generate an "attend-to-me signal" which causes suppression to develop over time, eventually preventing capture. Despite this assumption and the name "singleton suppression," a causal link between salience and suppression has not yet been clearly established. We point out the plausibility of a simple alternative mechanism: distractors might be suppressed because they are distractors rather than targets, even when non-salient. To look for evidence of salience-based suppression, we had participants search for a target shape among distractors, which sometimes included irrelevant-colored distractors. The critical manipulation was whether the irrelevant-colored distractor was salient (a color singleton) or non-salient (three non-target colored shapes; a triplet). On 30% of trials, probe letters were presented briefly inside each shape and participants were to report those letters. Probe recall below baseline indicates suppression. Experiment 1 showed that suppression was not triggered any more strongly by salient distractors (singletons) than by non-salient distractors (triplets). Experiment 2 showed that strong suppression effects developed rapidly even in the absence of salient singletons. These findings raise the thus far neglected question of whether salience plays any role in suppression.

Collinear search impairment is luminance contrast invariant

Collinear search impairment (CSI) is a phenomenon where a task-irrelevant collinear structure impairs a target search in a visual display. It has been suggested that CSI is monocular, occurs without the participants’ access to consciousness and is possibly processed at an early visual site (e.g. V1). This effect has frequently been compared with a well-documented opposite effect called attentional capture (AC), in which salient and task-irrelevant basic features (e.g. color, orientation) enhance target detection. However, whether this phenomenon can be attributed to non-attentional factors such as collinear facilitation (CF) has not yet been formally tested. Here we used one well-established property of CF, i.e. that target contrast modulates its effect direction (facilitation vs suppression), to examine whether CSI shared similar signature profiles along different contrast levels. In other words, we tested whether CSI previously observed at the supra-threshold level was reduced or reversed at near-threshold contrast levels. Our results showed that, regardless of the luminance contrast levels, participants spent a longer time searching for targets displayed on the salient singleton collinear structure than those displayed off the structure. Contrast invariance suggests that it is unlikely that CSI is exclusively sub-served by an early vision mechanism (e.g. CF).

What do we know about suppression of attention capture?

ABSTRACT Luck et al. [(2021). Progress toward resolving the attentional capture debate. Visual Cognition, 29(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2020.1848949] proposed singleton suppression as a promising resolution to the attention capture debate. Specifically, salient singletons are assumed to generate an “attend-to-me” signal and therefore represent a threat that triggers suppression. One noteworthy limitation is that singleton suppression has been demonstrated only when the singleton has a colour or location that is consistently associated with being a distractor. This raises the important question of whether “singleton” suppression has anything to do with being a singleton. Drawing on our recent work, we propose the alternative view that suppression occurs for colours associated with being distractors, regardless of whether they are also salient.

Spatially Guided Distractor Suppression during Visual Search.

Past work has demonstrated that active suppression of salient distractors is a critical part of visual selection. Evidence for goal-driven suppression includes below-baseline visual encoding at the position of salient distractors (Gaspelin and Luck, 2018) and neural signals such as the distractor positivity (Pd) that track how many distractors are presented in a given hemifield (Feldmann-Wüstefeld and Vogel, 2019). One basic question regarding distractor suppression is whether it is inherently spatial or nonspatial in character. Indeed, past work has shown that distractors evoke both spatial (Theeuwes, 1992) and nonspatial forms of interference (Folk and Remington, 1998), motivating a direct examination of whether space is integral to goal-driven distractor suppression. Here, we use behavioral and EEG data from adult humans (male and female) to provide clear evidence for a spatial gradient of suppression surrounding salient singleton distractors. Replicating past work, both reaction time and neural indices of target selection improved monotonically as the distance between target and distractor increased. Importantly, these target selection effects were paralleled by a monotonic decline in the amplitude of the Pd, an electrophysiological index of distractor suppression. Moreover, multivariate analyses revealed spatially selective activity in the θ-band that tracked the position of the target and, critically, revealed suppressed activity at spatial channels centered on distractor positions. Thus, goal-driven selection of relevant over irrelevant information benefits from a spatial gradient of suppression surrounding salient distractors.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Past work has shown that distractor suppression is an important part of goal-driven attentional selection, but has not yet revealed whether suppression is spatially directed. Using behavioral data, event-related potentials (ERPs) of the EEG signal [N2pc and distractor positivity (Pd) component], as well as a multivariate model of EEG data [channel tuning functions (CTF)], we show that suppression-related neural activity increases monotonically as the distance between targets and distractors decreases, and that spatially-selective activity in the θ-band reveals depressed activity in spatial channels that index distractor positions. Thus, we provide robust evidence for spatially-guided distractor suppression, a result that has important implications for models of goal-driven attentional control.

Distractor suppression leads to reduced flanker interference

Recent studies using the additional singleton paradigm have shown that regularities in distractor locations can cause biases in the spatial priority map, such that attentional capture by salient singletons is reduced for locations that are likely to contain distractors. It has been suggested that this type of suppression is proactive (i.e., occurring before display onset). The current study replicated the original findings using an online version of the task. To further assess the suppression of high-probability locations, we employed a congruence manipulation similar to the traditional flanker effect, where distractors could be either congruent or incongruent with the response to the target. Experiment 1 shows that through statistical learning distractor suppression reduces the interference from incongruent distractors, as participants made less errors in high-probability versus low-probability conditions. In Experiment 2, participants were forced to search for a specific target feature (the so-called feature-search mode), which is assumed to allow participants to ignore distractors in a top-down manner. Yet even when this “top-down” search mode was employed, there was still a congruence effect when the distractor singleton was presented at the low-probability but not at the high-probability location. The absence, but not reversal, of a congruence effect at the high-probability location also further indicates that this distractor suppression mechanism is proactive. The results indicate that regardless of the search mode used, there is suppression of the high-probability location indicating that this location competes less for attention within the spatial priority map than all other locations.

Can salient stimuli really be suppressed?

Although it is often assumed that a physically salient stimulus automatically captures attention even when it is irrelevant to a current task, the signal-suppression hypothesis proposes that observers can actively suppress a salient-but-irrelevant distractor. However, it is still unknown whether suppression alone (i.e., without target enhancement) is potent enough to override attentional capture by a salient singleton in an otherwise-homogeneous background. The current study addressed this issue. On search trials (70% of trials), participants searched for a shape target on trials that either did or did not contain an irrelevant color singleton. The effects of learning to suppress the color of the singleton were examined on interleaved probe trials (30% of trials). On these trials, participants searched for a probe target letter; those letters were presented on four ovals (one colored oval and three gray ovals). Each colored oval was a singleton that was one of three types: the color of the distractor on search trials, the color of the target on search trials, or a neutral color that had not appeared on search trials. Responses were faster for the probe target on a neutral-colored or target-colored item than on a gray-colored item; however, responses were slower for the probe target on a distractor-colored item than on a gray-colored item. The results demonstrate a powerful suppression mechanism overriding attentional capture by a singleton item.

Frequency of exposure and target salience affect the extinction of value-driven attention capture

Our work has demonstrated that previously rewarded features that remain task relevant continue to capture attention during an extinction phase. Here, we investigated the conditions under which such value-driven capture is extinguished. In three experiments (E), participants learned to associate a target color with reward, and another with no reward in a visual search paradigm. One week later, during the extinction phase, this association was no longer reinforced. In E1, the colors that previously defined targets were presented as distractors, as is typical of paradigms in this literature, however we failed to observe an effect of former reward-associations on RT, suggesting that reward did not reliably capture attention when task-irrelevant. E2 was identical to E1, but included an absent condition where neither formerly rewarded or non-rewarded colors were present. In E2 a value-driven capture effect was not observed. However, trials containing either a previously rewarded or non-rewarded distractor that had previously been selected were significantly slower compared to trials where no previously selected stimulus was present, which persisted throughout extinction. These findings demonstrate that the role of selection history (previous experience selecting a feature) appears to play a critical role in shaping attention, unique from that of reward history. E3 was also identical to E1 but targets were defined as salient shape singletons during extinction, another common feature in this literature. In contrast to E1 and E2, value-driven attention capture by formerly reward associated colors was extinguished. The rate of extinction in E3 was rapid, which could be the result of competition for attentional priority between the salient singleton and the distractor. These findings demonstrate that the extinction of value-driven capture depends on various factors that affect priority for attention, especially those features that bias attention away from reward-associated features.

Probing the Neural Mechanisms for Distractor Filtering and Their History-Contingent Modulation by Means of TMS

In visual search, the presence of a salient, yet task-irrelevant, distractor in the stimulus array interferes with target selection and slows down performance. Neuroimaging data point to a key role of the frontoparietal dorsal attention network in dealing with visual distractors; however, the respective roles of different nodes within the network and their hemispheric specialization are still unresolved. Here, we used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to evaluate the causal role of two key regions of the dorsal attention network in resisting attentional capture by a salient singleton distractor: the frontal eye field (FEF) and the cortex within the intraparietal sulcus (IPS). The task of the participants (male/female human volunteers) was to discriminate the pointing direction of a target arrow while ignoring a task-irrelevant salient distractor. Immediately after stimulus onset, triple-pulse 10 Hz TMS was delivered either to IPS or FEF on either side of the brain. Results indicated that TMS over the right FEF significantly reduced the behavioral cost engendered by the salient distractor relative to left FEF stimulation. No such effect was obtained with stimulation of IPS on either side of brain. Interestingly, this FEF-dependent reduction in distractor interference interacted with the contingent trial history, being maximal when no distractor was present on the previous trial relative to when there was one. Our results provide direct causal evidence that the right FEF houses key mechanisms for distractor filtering, pointing to a pivotal role of the frontal cortex of the right hemisphere in limiting interference from an irrelevant but attention-grabbing stimulus.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Visually conspicuous stimuli attract our attention automatically and interfere with performance by diverting resources away from the main task. Here, we applied transcranial magnetic stimulation over four frontoparietal cortex locations (frontal eye field and intraparietal sulcus in each hemisphere) to identify regions of the dorsal attention network that help limit interference from task-irrelevant, salient distractors. Results indicate that the right FEF participates in distractor-filtering mechanisms that are recruited when a distracting stimulus is encountered. Moreover, right FEF implements adjustments in distraction-filtering mechanisms following recent encounters with distractors. Together, these findings indicate a different hemispheric contribution of the left versus right dorsal frontal cortex to distraction filtering. This study expands our understanding of how our brains select relevant targets in the face of task-irrelevant, salient distractors.

Opposing effects of stimulus-driven and memory-driven attention in visual search.

When one searches for a specific target in a cluttered visual scene, a perceptually salient stimulus or a stimulus that matches working memory's contents is prioritized for attentional selection. In the present study, we aimed at clarifying under which circumstance stimulus-driven attention or memory-driven attention is more pronounced. We hypothesized that one crucial factor affecting stimulus-driven versus memory-driven attention is how a concurrent visual search task is performed. To address this issue, we employed two visual search tasks whose underlying mechanisms are known to be different: Landolt-C search and orientation feature search. One group of participants performed visual search tasks containing a memory-matching stimulus, and the other group conducted searches in the presence of a salient singleton distractor. The results showed that the effects of stimulus-driven and memory-driven attention differed, depending on the cognitive mechanisms underlying the visual search tasks. A memory-matching stimulus captured attention when participants performed the Landolt-C search, whereas this capture was diminished under feature search. In contrast, capture by the salient singleton distractor was found only under feature search. These results demonstrate that the nature of the underlying visual search tasks is an important factor for observing stimulus-driven versus memory-driven attention. Our results also provide a potential solution to resolve current debate regarding memory-driven attention in visual search.