Item-specific control of attention capture: An eye movement study

Abstract

Measures of attentional capture are sensitive to attentional control settings. Recent research suggests that such control settings can be linked associatively to specific items. Rapid item-specific retrieval of these control settings can then modulate measures of attentional capture. However, the processes that produce this item-specific control of attentional capture are unclear. The current study addressed this issue by examining eye-movement patterns associated with the item-specific proportion congruency effect (ISPC). Participants searched for a shape singleton target in search displays that also contained a colour singleton—the colour singleton was either the same item as the shape singleton (congruent trials) or a different item (incongruent trials). The relative proportions of congruent and incongruent trials were manipulated separately for two distinct item types that were randomly intermixed. Response times (RTs) were faster on congruent than incongruent trials, and this congruency effect was larger for high-proportion congruent (HPC) than low-proportion congruent (LPC) items. Eye movement data revealed a higher proportion of saccades towards the distractor and longer dwell times on the distractor in the HPC condition. These results suggest that item-specific associative learning can influence the strength of representation of the task goal (e.g., find the odd shape), a form of selection history effect in visual search.

Keywords

Proportion congruent attention capture eye movement attentional control

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Awh

Belopolsky

A. V.

Theeuwes

(2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010

Bacon

W. F.

Egeth

H. E.

(1994). Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture. Perception & Psychophysics, 55(5), 485–496.

Bugg

J. M.

Crump

M. J. C.

(2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 367. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367

Bundt

Ruitenberg

M. F. L.

Abrahamse

E.L.

Notebaert

(2018). Early and late indications of item-specific control in a Stroop mouse tracking study. PLOS ONE, 13(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197278

Chun

M. M.

Jiang

(1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36(1), 28–71. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0681

Cosman

J. D.

Vecera

S. P.

(2013a). Context-dependent control over attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 836–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030027

Cosman

J. D.

Vecera

S. P.

(2013b). Learned control over distraction is disrupted in amnesia. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1585–1590.

Crump

M. J. C.

Milliken

Leboe-McGowan

Gao

(2018). Context-dependent control of attention capture: Evidence from proportion congruent effects. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 72(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000145

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behaviour Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

10.

Folk

C. L.

Remington

R. W.

Johnston

J. C.

(1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1030–1044.

11.

Found

Müller

H. J.

(1996). Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: Investigating a “dimension-weighting” account. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 88–101. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205479

12.

Geyer

Müller

H. J.

Krummenacher

(2008). Expectancies modulate attentional capture by salient color singletons. Vision Research, 48(11), 1315–1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.02.006

13.

Hickey

Chelazzi

Theeuwes

(2010). Reward changes salience in human vision via the anterior cingulate. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(33), 11096–11103. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1026-10.2010

14.

Jacoby

L. L.

Lindsay

D. S.

Hessels

(2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 638–644. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196526

15.

Leber

A. B.

Egeth

H. E.

(2006). It’s under control: Top-down search strategies can override attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 132–138.

16.

Logan

G. D.

Zbrodoff

N. J.

(1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197535

17.

Lowe

D. G.

Mitterer

J. O.

(1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 684–700.

18.

Maljkovic

Nakayama

(1994). Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory & Cognition, 22(6), 657–672. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209251

19.

Morey

R. D.

(2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061

20.

Müller

H. J.

Heller

Ziegler

(1995). Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1–17.

21.

Nakatani

Pollatsek

(2004). An eye movement analysis of “mental rotation” of simple scenes. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(7), 1227–1245. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196848

22.

Peirce

J. W.

(2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017

23.

Peirce

J. W.

(2009). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008

24.

Posner

M. I.

(1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335558008248231

25.

Rayner

(1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372

26.

Theeuwes

(1991). Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity. Perception & Psychophysics, 50(2), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212219

27.

Theeuwes

(1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics, 51(6), 599–606. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211656

28.

Theeuwes

Kramer

A. F.

Hahn

Irwin

D. E.

Zelinsky

G. J.

(1999). Influence of attentional capture on oculomotor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1595–1608.

29.

Theeuwes

Reimann

Mortier

(2006). Visual search for featural singletons: No top-down modulation, only bottom-up priming. Visual Cognition, 14(4–8), 466–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280500195110

30.

Theeuwes

Van der Burg

(2011). On the limits of top-down control of visual selection. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 73(7), 2092–2103. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0176-9

31.

Thomson

D. R.

Willoughby

Milliken

(2014). Implicit learning modulates attention capture: Evidence from an item-specific proportion congruency manipulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 551. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00551

32.

Treisman

(1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memorial lectures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201–237.

33.

Treisman

Gelade

(1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.

34.

Treisman

Gormican

(1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95(1), 15–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.1.15

35.

Turatto

Galfano

(2001). Attentional capture by color without any relevant attentional set. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(2), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194469

36.

Umemoto

Scolari

Vogel

E. K.

Awh

(2010). Statistical learning induces discrete shifts in the allocation of working memory resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(6), 1419–1429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019324

37.

Verguts

Notebaert

(2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115(2), 518–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.518

38.

Verguts

Notebaert

(2009). Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(6), 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.007

39.

Wolfe

J. M.

(1994). Guided search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.

40.

Wolfe

J. M.

(2019). Visual attention: The multiple ways in which history shapes selection. Current Biology, 29(5), R155–R156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.01.032

41.

Wolfe

J. M.

Butcher

S. J.

Lee

Hyle

(2003). Changing your mind: On the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 483–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.483

42.

Yantis

Jonides

(1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(1), 121–134.

43.

Zehetleitner

Goschy

Müller

H. J.

(2012). Top-down control of attention: It’s gradual, practice-dependent, and hierarchically organized. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(4), 941–957. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027629

44.

Zhao

Liu

Jiao

Zhou

Sun

(2012). Dual-state modulation of the contextual cueing effect: Evidence from eye movement recordings. Journal of Vision, 12(6), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1167/12.6.11