Our sensory environments contain more information than we can process, and successful behaviors require the ability to separate task-relevant information from task-irrelevant information. Much research on attention has focused on the mechanisms that result in selection of desired information, but much less is known about how distracting information is ignored. Here, we describe evidence that strategic, learned, and passive information can all contribute to better distractor ignoring. The evidence suggests that there are multiple ways in which distractor ignoring is supported, and these ways may be different from those of target selection. Future work will need to identify the mechanisms by which each source of information adjusts attentional priority such that irrelevant information is better ignored.
AritaJ. T.CarlisleN. B.WoodmanG. F. (2012). Templates for rejection: Configuring attention to ignore task-irrelevant features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 580–584.
2.
AwhE.BelopolskyA. V.TheeuwesJ. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16, 437–443.
3.
BeckV. M.HollingworthA. (2015). Evidence for negative feature guidance in visual search is explained by spatial recoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 1190–1196.
4.
BellR.RoerJ. P.DentaleS.BuchnerA. (2012). Habituation of the irrelevant sound effect: Evidence for an attentional theory of short-term memory disruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1542–1557.
5.
BonettiF.TurattoM. (2019). Habituation of oculomotor capture by sudden onsets: Stimulus specificity, spontaneous recovery and dishabituation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45, 264–284.
6.
CarlisleN. B. (2019). Flexibility in attentional control: Multiple sources and suppression. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 92, 103–113.
7.
CarlisleN. B.NitkaA. W. (2019). Location-based explanations do not account for active attentional suppression. Visual Cognition, 27, 305–316.
8.
CarlisleN. B.WoodmanG. F. (2011). When memory is not enough: Electrophysiological evidence for goal-dependent use of working memory representations in guiding visual attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2650–2664. doi:10.1162/jocn.2011.21602
9.
ChelazziL.MariniF.PascucciD.TurattoM. (2019). Getting rid of visual distractors: The why, when, how and where. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 135–147. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.02.004
10.
ChetverikovA.CampanaG.KristjánssonA. (2017). Representing color ensembles. Psychological Science, 28, 1510–1517.
11.
ChunM. M.MaroisR. (2002). The dark side of visual attention. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 12, 184–189.
12.
ConciM.DeichselC.MüllerH. J.TöllnerT. (2019). Feature guidance by negative attentional templates depends on search difficulty. Visual Cognition, 27, 317–326.
13.
CosmanJ. D.LoweK. A.ZinkeW.WoodmanG. F.SchallJ. D. (2018). Prefrontal control of visual distraction. Current Biology, 28, 414–420.
14.
CunninghamC. A.EgethH. E. (2016). Taming the white bear: Initial costs and eventual benefits of distractor inhibition. Psychological Science, 27, 476–485.
15.
FailingM.TheeuwesJ. (2018). Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 514–538.
16.
FerranteO.PataccaA.Di CaroV.Della LiberaC.SantandreaE.ChelazziL. (2018). Altering spatial priority maps via statistical learning of target selection and distractor filtering. Cortex, 102, 67–95.
17.
ForsterS.LavieN. (2014). Distracted by your mind? Individual differences in distractibility predict mind wandering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 251–260.
18.
FukudaK.VogelE. K. (2011). Individual differences in recovery time from attentional capture. Psychological Science, 22, 361–368.
19.
GengJ. J. (2014). Attentional mechanisms of distractor suppression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 147–153.
20.
GengJ. J.BehrmannM. (2005). Spatial probability as an attentional cue in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1252–1262.
21.
GeyerT.MullerH. J.KrummenacherJ. (2006). Cross-trial priming in visual search for singleton conjunction targets: Role of repeated target and distractor features. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 736–749.
22.
JiangY. V. (2018). Habitual versus goal-driven attention. Cortex, 102, 107–120.
23.
KahnemanD.TreismanA.GibbsB. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175–219.
24.
KimH.AndersonB. A. (2019). Dissociable components of experience-driven attention. Current Biology, 29, 841–845.
25.
KristjánssonA.DriverJ. (2008). Priming in visual search: Separating the effects of target repetition, distractor repetition and role-reversal. Vision Research, 48, 1217–1232.
26.
KuglerG.Marius‘tHartB.KohlbecherS.EinhäuserW.SchneiderE. (2015). Gaze in visual search is guided more efficiently by positive cues than by negative cues. PLOS ONE, 10(12), Article e0145910. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145910
27.
KuoC. Y.ChaoH. F. (2014). Role of attentional tags in working memory-driven attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1301–1307.
28.
LamyD.Bar-AnanY.EgethH. E. (2008). The role of within-dimension singleton priming in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 268–285. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.268
29.
LoganG. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms?Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35.
30.
MaljkovicV.NakayamaK. (1996). Priming of pop-out: The role of position. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 977–991.
31.
MoherJ.EgethH. E. (2012). The ignoring paradox: Cueing distractor features leads first to selection, then to inhibition of to-be-ignored items. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 1590–1605.
32.
NoonanM. P.CrittendenB. M.JensenO.StokesM. G. (2018). Selective inhibition of distracting input. Behavioral Brain Research, 355, 36–47.
33.
RankinC. H.AbramsT.BarryR. J.BhatnagarS.ClaytonD. F.ColomboJ.. . . ThompsonR. F. (2009). Habituation revisited: An updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 92, 135–138.
34.
RederL. M.WeberK.ShangJ.VanyukovP. M. (2003). The adaptive character of the attentional system: Statistical sensitivity in a target localization task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 631–649.
SawakiR.LuckS. J. (2011). Active suppression of distractors that match the contents of visual working memory. Visual Cognition, 19, 956–972.
37.
SokolovE. N. (1863). Perception and the conditioned reflex. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
38.
StilwellB. T.VeceraS. P. (2019). Learned and cued distractor rejection for multiple features in visual search. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 81, 359–376.
39.
TheeuwesJ. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception and Psychophysics, 51, 599–606.
40.
TipperS. (1995). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 571–590.
41.
TurattoM.BonettiF.PascucciD.ChelazziL. (2018). Desensitizing the attention system to distraction while idling: A new latent learning phenomenon in the visual attention domain. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1827–1850.
42.
VatterottD. B.VeceraS. P. (2012). Experience-dependent attentional tuning of distractor rejection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 871–878.
43.
WangB.TheeuwesJ. (2018). How to inhibit a distractor location? Statistical learning versus active, top-down suppression. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 80, 860–870.
44.
WonB.GengJ. J. (2019). Passive exposure attenuates distraction during visual search. Manuscript submitted for publication.
45.
WonB.-Y.KosoyanM.GengJ. J. (2019). Evidence for second-order singleton suppression based on probabilistic expectations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45, 125–138.
46.
WoodmanG. F.LuckS. J. (2007). Do the contents of visual working memory automatically influence attentional selection during visual search?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 363–377.
47.
ZhangZ.GaspelinNCarlisleN. B. (2019). Probing early attention following negative and positive templates. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. Advance online publication. doi:10.3758/s13414-019-01864-8
