Abstract
It is disputed whether onsets capture spatial attention either in a purely stimulus-driven fashion or only when they are contingent on one’s attentional set. According to the latter assumption, interference from irrelevant onsets may result from nonspatial filtering costs. In the present study, we used inhibition of return (IOR) as a marker for spatial attention. IOR occurs mainly for locations that attention has visited before. Participants searched for a red object among white objects. An attentional set for redness was demonstrated by a spatial validity effect of red cues on response times. However, a stronger validity effect was found for irrelevant white onsets, which slowed responses when the onset contained a distractor, but speeded them when the onset contained a target. Most importantly, this onset benefit for targets turned into a deficit at longer SOAs, indicating IOR. We conclude that onset distractors capture spatial attention regardless of the observer’s attentional set.
Article PDF
References
Belopolsky, A. V., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). What is top-down about contingent capture? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 326–341.
Bennett, P. J., & Pratt, J. (2001). The spatial distribution of inhibition of return. Psychological Science, 12, 76–80.
Berlucchi, G. (2006). Inhibition of return: A phenomenon in search of a mechanism and a better name. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 1065–1074.
Berlucchi, G., Chelazzi, L., & Tassinari, G. (2000). Volitional covert orienting to a peripheral cue does not suppress cue-induced inhibition of return. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 648–663.
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 & Performance, 27, 1287–1302.
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 & Performance, 24, 847–858.
Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. (2006). Top-down modulation of preattentive processing: Testing the recovery account of contingent capture. Visual Cognition, 14, 445–465.
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 & Performance, 18, 1030–1044.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Wu, S.-C. (2009). Additivity of abrupt onset effects supports nonspatial distraction, not the capture of spatial attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 308–313.
Gibson, B. S., & Amelio, J. (2000). Inhibition of return and attentional control settings. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 496–504.
Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Burkell, J. (1983). The cost of visual filtering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 9, 510–522.
Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138–147.
Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 531–556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pratt, J., & McAuliffe, J. (2002). Determining whether attentional control settings are inclusive or exclusive. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1361–1370.
Pratt, J., Sekuler, A. B., & McAuliffe, J. (2001). The role of attentional set on attentional cueing and inhibition of return. Visual Cognition, 8, 33–46.
Rafal, R. D., Calabresi, P. A., Brennan, C. W., & Sciolto, T. K. (1989). Saccade preparation inhibits reorienting to recently attended locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 673–685.
Schreij, D., Owens, C., & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Abrupt onsets capture attention independent of top-down control settings. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 208–218.
Schreij, D., Theeuwes, J., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2010). Abrupt onsets capture attention independent of top-down control settings II: Additivity is no evidence for filtering. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 672–682.
Theeuwes, J., & Godijn, R. (2002). Irrelevant singletons capture attention: Evidence from inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 764–770.
Tipper, S. P., Weaver, B., Jerreat, L. M., & Burak, A. L. (1994). Object-based and environment-based inhibition of return of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 478–499.
Weger, U. W., Abrams, R. A., Law, M. B., & Pratt, J. (2008). Attending to objects: Endogenous cues can produce inhibition of return. Visual Cognition, 16, 659–674.
Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 601–621.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schreij, D., Theeuwes, J. & Olivers, C.N.L. Irrelevant onsets cause inhibition of return regardless of attentional set. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 72, 1725–1729 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.7.1725
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.7.1725