Advertisement

Cueing distraction: electrophysiological evidence for anticipatory active suppression of distractor location

  • Anna HeuerEmail author
  • Anna Schubö
Original Article
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

It is well known that processing at upcoming target locations can be facilitated, but mixed results have been obtained regarding the inhibition of irrelevant locations when advance information about distractors is available on a trial-to-trial basis. Here, we provide electrophysiological evidence that distractor locations can be anticipatorily suppressed. In an additional singleton search task, distractor cues were presented before the search display, which were either fully predictive or non-predictive of the location of the upcoming salient colour distractor. The PD component of the event-related potential, a marker of active suppression, was elicited by lateral singletons and smaller following predictive than non-predictive cues, indicating that less suppression was required upon presentation of the distractor when its location was known in advance. Presumably, excitability of regions processing the predictively cued locations was anticipatorily reduced to prevent distraction. This idea was further supported by the finding that larger individual cueing benefits in reaction time were associated with stronger reductions of the PD. There was no behavioural benefit at the group level, however, and implications for the role of individual differences and for the measurement of inhibition in distractor cueing tasks are discussed. The enhancement of target locations, reflected by the NT component, was not modulated by the predictiveness of the cues. Overall, our findings add to a growing literature highlighting the importance of inhibitory mechanisms for the guidance of spatial attention by showing that irrelevant locations can be anticipatorily suppressed in a top-down fashion, reducing the impact of even salient stimuli.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation—project number 222641018—SFB/TRR 135, TP B3) and was conducted while the first author was at Philipps-Universität Marburg. The authors would like to thank Aylin Hanne for assistance with data collection and valuable discussions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Psychology at Philipps-Universität Marburg and in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

References

  1. Barras, C., & Kerzel, D. (2016). Active suppression of salient-but-irrelevant stimuli does not underlie resistance to visual interference. Biological Psychology, 121, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51, 1484–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang, S., Cunningham, C. A., & Egeth, H. (2018). The power of negative thinking: Paradoxical but effective ignoring of salient-but-irrelevant stimuli with a spatial cue. Visual Cognition, Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  4. Cook, R. D. (1977). Detection of influential observations in linear regression. Technometrics, 19, 15–18.Google Scholar
  5. Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eimer, M. (1996). The N2pc component as an indicator of attentional selectivity. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 99, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feldmann-Wüstefeld, T., Uengoer, M., & Schubö, A. (2015). You see what you have learned. Evidence for an interrelation of associative learning and visual selective attention. Psychophysiology, 52, 1483–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feldmann-Wüstefeld, T., & Vogel, E. K. (2018). Neural evidence for the contribution of active suppression during working memory filtering. Cerebral Cortex..  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx336.Google Scholar
  9. Ferrante, O., Patacca, A., Di Caro, V., Della Libera, C., Santandrea, E., & Chelazzi, L. (2018). Altering spatial priority maps via statistical learning of target selection and distractor filtering. Cortex, 102, 67–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fortier-Gauthier, U., Moffat, N., Dell’Acqua, R., McDonald, J. J., & Jolicœur, P. (2012). Contralateral cortical organisation of information in visual short-term memory: Evidence from lateralized brain activity during retrieval. Neuropsychologia, 50, 1748–1758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaspar, J. M., Christie, G. J., Prime, D. J., Jolicœur, P., & McDonald, J. J. (2016). Inability to suppress salient distractors predicts low visual working memory capacity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 3693–3698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaspar, J. M., & McDonald, J. J. (2014). Suppression of salient objects prevents distraction in visual search. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 5658–5666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaspelin, N., Leonard, C. J., & Luck, S. J. (2016). Suppression of overt attentional capture by salient-but-irrelevant color singletons. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaspelin, N., & Luck, S. J. (2018a). Combined electrophysiological and behavioral evidence for the suppression of salient distractors. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30, 1265–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaspelin, N., & Luck, S. J. (2018b). The role of inhibition in avoiding distraction by salient stimuli. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geyer, T., Müller, H., & Krummenacher, J. (2008). Expectancies modulate attentional capture by salient color singletons. Vision Research, 48, 1315–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hickey, C., Di Lollo, V., & McDonald, J. J. (2009). Electrophysiological indices of target and distractor processing in visual search. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 760–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jannati, A., Gaspar, J. M., & McDonald, J. J. (2013). Tracking target and distractor processing in fixed-feature visual search: Evidence from human electrophysiology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1713–1730.Google Scholar
  20. Luck, S. J. (2012). Electrophysiological correlates of the focusing of attention within complex visual scenes: N2pc and related ERP components. In E. S. Kappenman & S. J. Luck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components (pp. 329–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Moher, J., Abrams, J., Egeth, H. E., Yantis, S., & Stuphorn, V. (2011). Trial-by-trial adjustments of top-down set modulate oculomotor capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 897–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Müller, H. J., Geyer, T., Zehetleitner, M., & Krummenacher, J. (2009). Attentional capture by salient color singleton distractors is modulated by top-down dimensional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1–16.Google Scholar
  24. Munneke, J., Fait, E., & Mazza, V. (2013). Attentional processing of multiple targets and distractors. Psychophysiology, 50, 1104–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Munneke, J., Heslenfeld, D. J., Usrey, W. M., Theeuwes, J., & Mangun, G. R. (2011). Preparatory effects of distractor suppression: Evidence from visual cortex. PLoS ONE, 6, e27700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E., & Schoffelen, J. M. (2011). FieldTrip: Open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2011, 156869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ruff, C. C., & Driver, J. (2006). Attentional preparation for a lateralized visual distractor: Behavioral and fMRI evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 522–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sawaki, R., Geng, J. J., & Luck, S. J. (2012). A common neural mechanism for preventing and terminating the allocation of attention. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 10725–10736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Sawaki, R., & Luck, S. J. (2011). Active suppression of distractors that match the contents of visual working memory. Visual Cognition, 19, 956–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2018a). How to inhibit a distractor location? Statistical learning versus active, top-down suppression. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 80, 860–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2018b). Statistical regularities modulate attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 13–17.Google Scholar
  35. Wang, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2018c). Statistical regularities modulate attentional capture independent of search strategy. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80, 1763–1774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2003). Serial deployment of attention during visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 121–138.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Experimental and Biological PsychologyPhilipps-Universität MarburgMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations