Advertisement

Ironic capture: top-down expectations exacerbate distraction in visual search

  • Greg Huffman
  • Jason Rajsic
  • Jay Pratt
Original Article

Abstract

Ironic processing refers to the phenomenon where attempting to resist doing something results in a person doing that very thing. Here, we report three experiments investigating the role of ironic processing in visual search. In Experiment 1, we informed observers that they could predict the location of a salient color singleton in a visual search task and found that response times were slower in that condition than in a condition where the singleton’s location was random. Experiment 2 used the same experimental design but did not inform participants of the color singleton’s behavior. Experiment 3 showed that the cost in the predictable condition was not due to dual task costs or block order effects and participants attempting to use the strategy showed a larger cost in the predictable condition than those who abandoned using that location foreknowledge. In this case, responses in the predictable color singleton condition were equivalent with the random color singleton condition. This suggests that having more knowledge about an upcoming, salient distractor ironically increases its interfering influence on performance.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This project was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, in form of a discovery grant to Jay Pratt and a Postgraduate Scholarship-Doctoral to Jason Rajsic.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

All participants provided informed consent before participating in the study.

References

  1. Arita, J. T., Carlisle, N. B., & Woodman, G. F. (2012). Templataes for rejection: Configuring attention to ignore task-irrelevant features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 580–584.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Asgeirsson, A. G., Kristjánsson, A., & Bundesen, C. (2014). Independent priming of location and color in identification of briefly presented letters. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 76, 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 437–443.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, V. M., & Hollingworth, A. (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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, S. I. (2007). Irrelevant singletons in pop-out search: Attentional capture or filtering costs? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 764–787.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, M. W., Hemsteger, S., & Peltier, C. (2016). No templates for rejection: A failure to configure attention to ignore task-irrelevant features. Visual Cognition, 6285, 1–18.Google Scholar
  7. Belopolsky, A. V., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). What is top-down about contingent capture? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 326–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). No capture outside the attentional window. Vision Research, 50, 2543–2550.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Belopolsky, A. V., Zwaan, L., Theeuwes, J., & Kramer, A. F. (2007). The size of an attentional window modulates attentional capture by color singletons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 934–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bundesen, C., Vangkilde, S., & Petersen, A. (2015). Recent developments in a computational theory of visual attention (TVA). Vision Research, 116, 210–218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cave, K. R. (1999). The FeatureGate model of visual selection. Psychological Research, 62, 182–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cepeda, N. J., Cave, K. R., Bichot, N. P., & Kim, M. S. (1998). Spatial selection via feature-driven inhibition of distractor locations. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 727–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chao, H.-F. (2010). Top-down attentional control for distractor locations: The benefit of precuing distractor locations on target localization and discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 303–316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chelazzi, L., Miller, E. K., Duncan, J., & Desiomne, R. (1993). A neural basis for visual search in inferior temporal cortex. Nature, 363, 339–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, A., Ivry, R. I., & Keele, S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology, 1, 42–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Destrebecqz, A., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Can sequence learning be implicit? New evidence with the process dissociation procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 343–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 374–380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Erskine, J. A., Georgiou, G. J., & Kvavilashvili, L. (2010). I suppress, therefore I smoke: Effects of thought suppression on smoking behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 1225–1230.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaspar, J. M., & McDonald, J. J. (2014). Suppression of salient objects prevents distraction in visual search. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 5658–5666.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaspelin, N., Leonard, C. J., & Luck, S. J. (2015). Direct evidence for active suppression of salient-but-irrelevant sensory inputs. Psychological Science, 26, 1740–1750.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaspelin, N., Leonard, C. J., & Luck, S. J. (2017). Suppression of overt attentional capture by salient-but-irrelevant color singletons. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geyer, T., Zehetleitner, M., & Müller, H. J. (2010). Positional priming of pop-out: A relational-encoding account. Journal of Vision, 10, 1–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gibson, B. S., & Bryant, T. A. (2008). The identity intrusion effect: Attentional capture or perceptual load? Visual Cognition, 16, 182–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gokce, A., Müller, H. J., & Geyer, T. (2015). Positional priming of visual pop-out search is supported by multiple spatial reference frames. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grafton, S. T., Hazeltine, E., & Ivry, R. (1995). Functional mapping of sequence learning in normal humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 497–510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hasson, U., Chen, J., & Honey, C. J. (2015). Hierarchical process memory: Memory as an integral component of information processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 304–313.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Hillstrom, A. P. (2000). Repetition effects in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 800–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godijn, R. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12, 360–365.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Jiang, Y., & Wagner, L. C. (2004). What is learned in spatial contextual cuing—configuration or individual locations? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 66, 454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jollie, A., Ivanoff, J., Webb, N. E., & Jamieson, A. S. (2016). Expect the unexpected: A paradoxical effect of cue validity on the orienting of attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 2124–2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klein, R. M., & Hilchey, M. D. (2011). Oculomotor inhibition of return. In S. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 471– 492). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., Pelli, D. (2007). “What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3?” Perception 36 ECVP Abstract Supplement.Google Scholar
  36. Lahav, A., Makovski, T., & Tsal, Y. (2012). White bear everywhere: Exploring the boundaries of the attentional white bear phenomenon. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 661–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lamy, D., Tsal, Y., & Egeth, H. E. (2003). Does a salient distractor capture attention early in processing? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 621–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leber, A. B., & Egeth, H. E. (2006). It’s under control: Top-down search strategies can override attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 132–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maljkovic, V., & Nakayama, K. (1996). Priming of pop-out: II. The role of position. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 977–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moher, J., & Egeth, H. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Munneke, J., Van der Stigchel, S., & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Cueing the location of a distractor: An inhibitory mechanism of spatial attention? Acta Psychologica, 129, 101–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9, 74–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Rabbitt, P., Cumming, G., & Vyas, S. (1979). Modulation of selective attention by sequential effects in visual search tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 305–317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rajsic, J., Wilson, D. E., & Pratt, J. (2015). Confirmation bias in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 1353–1364.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sawaki, R., & Luck, S. J. (2010). Capture versus suppression of attention by salient singletons: Electrophysiological evidence for an automatic attend-to-me signal. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1455–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Serences, J. T., Yantis, S., Culberson, A., & Awh, E. (2004). Preparatory activity in visual cortex indexes distractor suppression during covert spatial orienting. Journal of Neurophysiology, 92, 3538–3545.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Shore, D. I., Spence, C., & Klein, R. M. (2001). Visual prior entry. Psychological Science, 12, 360–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Theeuwes, J. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 599–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Theeuwes, J., & Burger, R. (1998). Attentional control during visual search: The effect of irrelevant singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Theeuwes, J., de Vries, G., & Godijn, R. (2003). Attentional and oculomotor capture with static singletons. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 735–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsal, Y., & Makovski, T. (2006). The attentional white bear phenomenon: The mandatory allocation of attention to expected distractor locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 351–363.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Van der Stigchel, S., & Theeuwes, J. (2006). Our eyes deviate away from a location where a distractor is expected to appear. Experimental Brain Research, 169, 338–349.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Wegner, D. M. (2009). How to think, say, or do precisely the worst thing for any occasion. Science, 325, 48–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Wegner, D. M., Ansfield, M., & Pilloff, D. (1998). The putt and the pendulum: Ironic effects of the mental control of action. Psychological Science, 9, 196–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wegner, D. M., & Erber, R. (1992). The hyperaccessibility of suppressed thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 903–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Zelinsky, G. J. (2008). A Theory of Eye Movements during Target Acquisition. Psychological Review, 115, 787–835.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhao, J., Al-Aidroos, N., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2013). Attention is spontaneously biased toward regularities. Psychological Science, 24, 667–677.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations