4.2 Article

Evidence for Second-Order Singleton Suppression Based on Probabilistic Expectations

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000594

关键词

attentional capture; distractor suppression; visual search; probabilistic expectation; repetition priming

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [BCS-201502778]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decades of research in attention have shown that salient distractors (e.g., a color singleton) tend to capture attention. However, in most studies, singleton distractors are just as likely to be present as absent. We therefore have little knowledge of how probabilistic expectations of the salient distractor's occurrence and features affect suppression. In three experiments, we explored this question by manipulating the frequency of a singleton distractor and the variability of its color within a search display. We found that increased expectations regarding the occurrence of the singleton distractor eliminated the singleton response time cost and reduced the number of first saccades to the singleton. In contrast, expectations regarding variability in the singleton color did not affect singleton capture. This was surprising and suggests the ability to suppress second-order salience over and above that of first-order features. We next inserted the probe display that included a to-be-reported letter inside each shape between search trials to measure if attention went to multiple objects. The letter in the singleton location was reported less often in the high-frequency condition, suggesting proactive suppression of expected singleton. Additionally, we found that trial-to-trial repetitions of a singleton (irrespective of its color and location) facilitated performance (i.e., singleton repetition priming), but repetitions of its specific color or location did not. Together our findings demonstrate that attentional capture by a color singleton distractor is attenuated by probabilistic expectations of its occurrence, but not of its color and location.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据