We examined whether shifting attention to a location necessarily entails extracting the features at that location, a process referred to as attentional engagement. In three spatial-cuing experiments (N = 60), we found that an onset cue captured attention both when it shared the target’s color and when it did not. Yet the effects of the match between the response associated with the cued object’s identity and the response associated with the target (compatibility effects), which are diagnostic of attentional engagement, were observed only with relevant-color onset cues. These findings demonstrate that stimulus- and goal-driven capture have qualitatively different consequences: Before attention is reoriented to the target, it is engaged to the location of the critical distractor following goal-driven capture but not stimulus-driven capture. The reported dissociation between attentional shifts and attentional engagement suggests that attention is best described as a camera: One can align its zoom lens without pressing the shutter button.
BidermanD.BidermanN.ZivonyA.LamyD. (2017). Contingent capture is weakened in search for multiple features from different dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1974–1992.
4.
CarmelT.LamyD. (2014). The same-location cost is unrelated to attentional settings: An object-updating account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1465–1478.
5.
DienesZ.MclatchieN. (2018). Four reasons to prefer Bayesian analyses over significance testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 207–218.
6.
EimerM.KissM. (2008). Involuntary attentional capture is determined by task set: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1423–1433.
7.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.
8.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2013). G*Power (Version 3.1.7) [Computer software]. Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel.
9.
FolkC. L.EsterE. F.TroemelK. (2009). How to keep attention from straying: Get engaged!Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 127–132.
10.
FolkC. L.RemingtonR. (1998). Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: Evidence for two forms of attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 847–858.
11.
FolkC. L.RemingtonR. (2006). Top-down modulation of preattentive processing: Testing the recovery account of contingent capture. Visual Cognition, 14, 445–465.
12.
FolkC. L.RemingtonR. W. (2008). Bottom-up priming of top-down attentional control settings. Visual Cognition, 16, 215–231.
13.
FolkC. L.RemingtonR. W. (2015). Unexpected abrupt onsets can override a top-down set for color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 1153–1165.
14.
FolkC. L.RemingtonR. W.JohnstonJ. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030–1044.
15.
GaspelinN.RuthruffE.LienM. C. (2016). The problem of latent attentional capture: Easy visual search conceals capture by task-irrelevant abrupt onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 1104–1120.
16.
GoldfarbL.TreismanA. (2010). Are some features easier to bind than others? The congruency effect. Psychological Science, 21, 676–681.
17.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
LammeV. A.RoelfsemaP. R. (2000). The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends in Neurosciences, 23, 571–579.
19.
LamyD.AlonL.CarmelT.ShalevN. (2015). The role of conscious perception in attentional capture and object-file updating. Psychological Science, 26, 48–57.
20.
LamyD.LeberA.EgethH. E. (2004). Effects of task relevance and stimulus-driven salience in feature-search mode. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 1019–1031.
21.
LamyD.LeberA. B.EgethH. E. (2013). Selective attention. In HealyA. F.ProctorR. W. (Vol. Eds.) & I. B. Weiner (Editor-in-Chief), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 4. Experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 267–294). New York, NY: Wiley.
22.
MaljkovicV.NakayamaK. (1994). Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory & Cognition, 22, 657–672.
23.
MoreyR. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64.
NieuwensteinM. R.ChunM. M.van der LubbeR. H.HoogeI. T. (2005). Delayed attentional engagement in the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1463–1475.
26.
PosnerM. I.PetersenS. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42.
27.
PosnerM. I.RuedaM. R.KanskeP. (2007). Probing the mechanisms of attention. In CacioppoJ.TassinaryL. G.BerntsonG. G. (Eds.), The handbook of psychophysiology (3rd ed., pp. 410–432). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28.
SchreijD.OwensC.TheeuwesJ. (2008). Abrupt onsets capture attention independent of top-down control settings. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 208–218.
29.
SperlingG.WeichselgartnerE. (1995). Episodic theory of the dynamics of spatial attention. Psychological Review, 102, 503–532.
30.
TheeuwesJ. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 135, 77–99.
31.
TheeuwesJ.AtchleyP.KramerA. F. (2000). On the time course of top-down and bottom-up control of visual attention. In MonsellS.DriverJ. (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 105–124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
TöllnerT.RangelovD.MüllerH. J. (2012). How the speed of motor-response decisions, but not focal-attentional selection, differs as a function of task set and target prevalence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, E1990–E1999.
33.
WinerB. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1962)
34.
WolfeJ. M. (2007). Guided search 4.0: Current progress with a model of visual search. In GrayW. D. (Ed.), Integrated models of cognitive systems (pp. 99–119). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
35.
YantisS.JonidesJ. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 601–621.
36.
YasharA.LamyD. (2010). Intertrial repetition facilitates selection in time: Common mechanisms underlie spatial and temporal search. Psychological Science, 23, 243–251.
37.
ZivonyA.LamyD. (2016a). Attentional capture and engagement during the attentional blink: A “camera” metaphor of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 1886–1902.
38.
ZivonyA.LamyD. (2016b). The role of dimension relevance in features’ access to response-selection mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 1873–1885.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
