Abstract
Previous studies have shown that multiple features in attentional control settings have different effects on guiding attention. Distractors matching the selection feature of the target capture attention, but distractors matching the response feature do not necessarily capture attention when they were presented in task-relevant locations. The present study examined how distractors matching either the response feature or the selection feature affect guidance of attention and subsequent processing when they were presented in task-irrelevant locations. The results of four experiments consistently showed that distractors matching the selection feature (target-color) were sufficient to capture attention and facilitated subsequent processing no matter whether they match the response feature (letter shape) or not. However, distractors matching only the response feature but not the selection feature were suppressed reactively after their initial attentional capture at task-irrelevant locations. Thus, the selection feature and the response feature in attentional control settings have different effects on guiding attention.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adamo, M., Pun, C., Pratt, J., & Ferber, S. (2008). Your divided attention, please! The maintenance of multiple attentional control sets over distinct regions in space. Cognition, 107, 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.003
Adamo, M., Wozny, S., Pratt, J., & Ferber, S. (2010). Parallel, independent attentional control settings for colors and shapes. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 1730–1735. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.7.1730
Anderson, B. A., & Folk, C. L. (2012). Dissociating location-specific inhibition and attention shifts: Evidence against the disengagement account of contingent capture. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 74(6), 1183–1198. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0325-9
Bacon, W. F., & Egeth, H. E. (1994). Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 485–496. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205306
Becker, S. I. (2010). The role of target–distractor relationships in guiding attention and the eyes in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018808
Becker, S. I., Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. W. (2010). The role of relational information in contingent capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36 (6), 1460–1476. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020370
Becker, S. I., Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. W. (2013). Attentional capture does not depend on feature similarity, but on target-nontarget relations. Psychological Science, 24(5), 634–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612458528
Belopolsky, A. V., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). What is top-down about contingent capture? Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 326–341. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.2.326
Benoni, H., & Tsal, Y. (2012). Controlling for dilution while manipulating load: Perceptual and sensory limitations are just two aspects of task difficulty. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 631–638. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0244-8
Berggren, N., & Eimer, M. (2018). Feature-guided attentional capture cannot be prevented by spatial filtering. Biological Psychology, 134, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.02.007
Biderman, D., Biderman, N., Zivony, A., & Lamy, D. (2017). Contingent capture is weakened in search for multiple features from different dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 43(12), 1974–1992. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000422
Born, S., Kerzel, D., & Pratt, J. (2015). Contingent capture effects in temporal order judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(4), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000058
Büsel, C., Pomper, U., & Ansorge, U. (2018). Capture of attention by target-similar cues during dual-color search reflects reactive control among top-down selected attentional control settings. Psychonomic Bulletin &Review, 36, 521–527. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1543-5
Chang, S., Cunningham, C. A., & Egeth, H. E. (2019). The power of negative thinking: Paradoxical but effective ignoring of salient-but-irrelevant stimuli with a spatial cue. Visual Cognition, 27, 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2018.1541950
Chen, Y., & Du, F. (2017). Two visual working memory representations simultaneously control attention. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 6107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05865-1
Cho, S. A., & Cho, Y. S. (2018). Multiple attentional control settings at distinct locations without the confounding of repetition priming. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 80(7), 1718–1730. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1549-0
Cunningham, C. A., & Egeth, H. E. (2016). Taming the white bear: Initial costs and eventual benefits of distractor inhibition. Psychological Science, 27(4), 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615626564
Dienes, Z. (2011). Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: Which side are you on? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406920
Du, F., & Abrams, R. A. (2008). Synergy of stimulus-driven salience and goal-directed prioritization: Evidence from the spatial blink. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(8), 1489–1503. https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.8.1489
Du, F., & Abrams, R. A. (2010). Visual field asymmetry in attentional capture. Brain and Cognition, 72(2), 310–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.10.006
Du, F., & Abrams, R. A. (2012). Out of control: Attentional selection for orientation is thwarted by properties of the underlying neural mechanisms. Cognition, 124, 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.05.013
Du, F., & Jiao, J. (2016). Feature-based attention is functionally distinct from relation-based attention: The double dissociation between color-based capture and color-relation-based capture of attention. Journal of experimental psychology: human perception and performance, 42(4), 480. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000165
Du, F., Yin, Y., Qi, Y., & Zhang, K. (2014). Contingent orienting or contingent capture: A size singleton matching the target-distractor size relation cannot capture attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 1011–1018. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0567-0
Enns, J. T., Austen, E. L., Di Lollo, V., Rauschenberger, R., & Yantis, S. (2001). New objects dominate luminance transients in setting attentional priority. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(6), 1287–1302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.6.1287
Folk, C. L., Leber, A. B., & Egeth, H. E. (2002). Made you blink! Contingent attentional capture produces a spatial blink. Perception& Psychophysics, 64(5), 741–753. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194741
Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.847
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1030
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Wright, J. H. (1994). The structure of attentional control: Contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(2), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.2.317
Gaspar, J. M., & McDonald, J. J. (2014). Suppression of salient objects prevents distraction in visual search. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(16), 5658–5666. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4161-13.2014
Gaspelin, N., & Luck, S. J. (2018a). Distinguishing among potential mechanisms of singleton suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(4), 626–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000484
Gaspelin, N., & Luck, S. J. (2018b). The role of inhibition in avoiding distraction by salient stimuli. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.001
Grubert, A., & Eimer, M. (2016). The speed of serial attention shifts in visual search: Evidence from the N2pc component. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28, 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00898
Goller, F., Schoeberl, T., & Ansorge, U. (2020). Testing the top-down contingent capture of attention for abrupt-onset cues: Evidence from cue-elicited N2pc. Psychophysiology, 57(11), e13655. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13655
Haenny, P. E., Maunsell, J. H., & Schiller, P. H. (1988). State dependent activity in monkey visual cortex. II. Retinal and extraretinal factors in V4. Experimental Brain Research, 69(2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00247570
Harris, A. M., Becker, S. I., & Remington, R. W. (2015). Capture by colour: Evidence for dimension-specific singleton capture. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 77, 2305–2321. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0927-0
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/713756773
Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007.
Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2004). Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition, 11, 483–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280344000400
Hua, H., Zhang, J., Li, Y., & Du, F. (2019). Color-relation-based capture occurs globally. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01573-1
Irons, J. L., Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. W. (2012). All set! Evidence of simultaneous attentional control settings for multiple target colors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 758–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026578
Irons, J. L., & Remington, R. W. (2013). Can attentional control settings be maintained for two color-location conjunctions? Evidence from an RSVP task. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 75, 862–875. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0439-8
Ito, M., & Kawahara, J. I. (2016). Contingent attentional capture across multiple feature dimensions in a temporal search task. Acta Psychologica, 163, 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.11.009
Kiss, M., Grubert, A., & Eimer, M. (2013). Top-down task sets for combined features: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for two stages in attentional object selection. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 75(2), 216–228. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0391-z
Kawahara, J. I., & Kumada, T. (2016). Multiple attentional sets while monitoring rapid serial visual presentations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 2271–2289. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1231827
Lamy, D., Leber, A., & Egeth, H. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.6.1019
Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451–468 https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.3.451
Lee, J., Leonard, C. J., Luck, S. J., & Geng, J. J. (2018). Dynamics of feature-based attentional selection during color–shape conjunction search. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(12), 1773–1787. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01318
Leonard, C. J., Balestreri, A., & Luck, S. J. (2015). Interactions between space-based and feature-based attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.103 7/xhp0000011.NI
Marini, F., Demeter, E., Roberts, K. C., Chelazzi, L., & Woldorff, M. G. (2016). Orchestrating proactive and reactive mechanisms for filtering distracting information: Brain-behavior relationships revealed by a mixed-design fMRI study. The Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 988–1000. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2966-15.2016
Mast, F., & Frings, C. (2014). The impact of the irrelevant: The task environment modulates the impact of irrelevant features in response selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 2198–2213. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038182
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(8), 1590–1605. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0358-0
Motter, B. C. (1994). Neural correlates of attentive selection for color or luminance in extrastriate area V4. The Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 2178–2189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0911-6044(94)90023-X
Parrott, S. E., Levinthal, B. R., & Franconeri, S. L. (2010). Complex attentional control settings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 2297–2304. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.520085
Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 849–860. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.3.849
Rheem, H., & Cho, Y. S. (2021). A finer-grained search reveals no evidence of the attentional capture by to-be-ignored features. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 81, 2441–2457. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02305-1
Roper, Z. J. J., & Vecera, S. P. (2012). Searching for two things at once: Establishment of multiple attentional control settings on a trial-by-trial basis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(6), 1114–1121. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0297-8
Sawaki, R., & Luck, S. J. (2013). Active suppression after involuntary capture of attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 296–301. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0353-4
Schoeberl, T., Ditye, T., & Ansorge, U. (2018). Same-location costs in peripheral cueing: The role of cue awareness and feature changes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000470
Schoeberl, T., Goller, F., & Ansorge, U. (2019). Top-down matching singleton cues have no edge over top-down matching non-singletons in spatial cueing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(1), 241–249.https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1499-5
Stilwell, B. T., Bahle, B., & Vecera, S. P. (2019). Feature-based statistical regularities of distractors modulate attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(3), 419–433.
Wei, P., & Zhou, X. (2006). Processing multidimensional objects under different perceptual loads: The priority of bottom-up perceptual saliency. Brain Research, 1114, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.071
Wyble, B., Folk, C., & Potter, M. C. (2013). Contingent attentional capture by conceptually relevant images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 861. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030517
Wu, X., Liu, X., & Fu, S. (2016). Feature- and category-specific attentional control settings are differently affected by attentional engagement in contingent attentional capture. Biological Psychology, 118, 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.04.065
Zivony, A., & Lamy, D. (2018). Contingent attentional engagement: Stimulus- and goal-driven capture have qualitatively different consequences. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1930–1941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618799302
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant numbers 31470982], and the Space Medical Experiment Project of China Manned Space Program (grant number: HYZHXM03002).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The study was conceived by F. Du., M. Dai and Z. Wei. M. Dai and Z. Wei. collected and analyzed data under F. Du’s supervision. F. Du and Z. Wei wrote the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Data Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Ethical approval
The present study was approved by the Institution Review Board of the Institute of Psychology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Wei, Z., Dai, M. & Du, F. The reversed compatibility effect: distractors matching the response feature but not the selection feature capture attention and evoke suppression. Curr Psychol 43, 3341–3354 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04482-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04482-8