Attentional capture by salient distractors during visual search is determined by temporal task demands

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 749-759

  Kiss, Monika ^a   Grubert, Anna ^a,b   Petersen, Anders ^c   Eimer, Martin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISTRACTIBILITY; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ADULT; ATTENTION; CUES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84856344265     PISSN: 0898929X     EISSN: 15308898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00127     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ansorge, U., Kiss, M., Worschech, F., & Eimer, M. (2011). The initial stage of visual selection is controlled by top-down task set: New ERP evidence. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 113-122.
2. Becker, S. (2007). Irrelevant singletons in pop-out search: Attentional capture or filtering costs? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 764-787.
3. Dalvit, S., & Eimer, M. (2011). Memory-driven attentional capture is modulated by temporal task demands. Visual Cognition, 19, 145-153.
4. Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193-222.
5. Eimer, M. (1996). The N2pc component as an indicator of attentional selectivity. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 99, 225-234.
6. Eimer, M., & Kiss, M. (2008). Involuntary attentional capture is determined by task set: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1423-1433.
7. Eimer, M., Kiss, M., Press, C., & Sauter, D. (2009). The roles of feature-specific task set and bottom-up salience in attentional capture: An ERP study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1316-1328.
8. Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. W. (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.
9. 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, 1030-1044.
10. 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, 317-329.
11. 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.
12. Hickey, C., McDonald, J. J., & Theeuwes, J. (2006). Electrophysiological evidence of the capture of visual attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 604-613.
13. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Burkell, J. (1983). The cost of visual filtering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 510-522.
14. Leber, A. B. (2010). Neural predictors of within-subject fluctuations in attentional control. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 11458-11465.
15. Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., Goodin, Z., & Remington, R. W. (2008). Contingent attentional capture by top-down control settings: Converging evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 509-530.
16. Luck, S. J., & Hillyard, S. A. (1994). Spatial filtering during visual search: Evidence from human electrophysiology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1000-1014.
17. Mathôt, S., Hickey, C., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). From reorienting of attention to biased competition: Evidence from hemifield effects. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 651-657.
18. Mounts, J. R. W., & Gavett, B. E. (2004). The role of salience in localized attentional interference. Vision Research, 44, 1575-1588.
19. Pinto, Y., Olivers, C. N. L., & Theeuwes, J. (2005). Target uncertainty does not lead to more distraction by singletons: Intertrial priming does. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1354-1361.
20. Sawaki, R., & Luck, S. (2010). Capture versus suppression of attention by salient singletons: Electrophysiological evidence for an automatic attend-to-me signal. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 1455-1470.
21. Theeuwes, J. (1991). Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 184-193.
22. Theeuwes, J. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 599-606.
23. Theeuwes, J. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 135, 77-99.
24. Theeuwes, J., Atchley, P., & Kramer, A. F. (2000). On the time course of top-down and bottom-up control of visual attention. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 105-124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.