No Evidence for Spatial Suppression Due to Across-trial Distractor Learning in Visual Search

Overview

Journal Atten Percept Psychophys

Publisher Springer

Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology

Date 2023 Feb 23

PMID 36823261

Authors

Ai-Su Li

Louisa Bogaerts

Jan Theeuwes

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that during visual search, participants are able to implicitly learn across-trial regularities regarding target locations and use these to improve search performance. The present study asks whether such across-trial visual statistical learning also extends to the location of salient distractors. In Experiments 1 and 2, distractor regularities were paired so that a specific distractor location was 100% predictive of another specific distractor location on the next trial. Unlike previous findings that employed target regularities, the current results show no difference in search times between predictable and unpredictable trials. In Experiments 3-5 the distractor location was presented in a structured order (a sequence) for one group of participants, while it was presented randomly for the other group. Again, there was no learning effect of the across-trial regularities regarding the salient distractor locations. Across five experiments, we demonstrated that participants were unable to exploit across-trial spatial regularities regarding the salient distractors. These findings point to important boundary conditions for the modulation of visual attention by statistical regularities and they highlight the need to differentiate between different types of statistical regularities.

Citing Articles

Attending is not enough: Responding to targets is needed for across-trial statistical learning.

Li A, van Moorselaar D, Theeuwes J Atten Percept Psychophys. 2024; 86(6):1963-1973.

PMID: 39214919 PMC: 11410895. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-024-02952-0.

Trichotomy revisited: A monolithic theory of attentional control.

Anderson B Vision Res. 2024; 217:108366.

PMID: 38387262 PMC: 11523554. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2024.108366.

References

Bogaerts L, Siegelman N, Christiansen M, Frost R . Is there such a thing as a 'good statistical learner'?. Trends Cogn Sci. 2021; 26(1):25-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.10.012. View

Fiser J, Scholl B, Aslin R . Perceived object trajectories during occlusion constrain visual statistical learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007; 14(1):173-8. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194046. View

Heuer A, Schubo A . Cueing distraction: electrophysiological evidence for anticipatory active suppression of distractor location. Psychol Res. 2019; 84(8):2111-2121. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-019-01211-4. View

Brysbaert M . How Many Participants Do We Have to Include in Properly Powered Experiments? A Tutorial of Power Analysis with Reference Tables. J Cogn. 2019; 2(1):16. PMC: 6640316. DOI: 10.5334/joc.72. View

Munneke J, Heslenfeld D, Usrey W, Theeuwes J, Mangun G . Preparatory effects of distractor suppression: evidence from visual cortex. PLoS One. 2011; 6(12):e27700. PMC: 3229494. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027700. View

Wang L, Wang B, Theeuwes J . Across-trial spatial suppression in visual search. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021; 83(7):2744-2752. PMC: 8460537. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-021-02341-x. View

Saffran J, Aslin R, Newport E . Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science. 1996; 274(5294):1926-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926. View

Leber A, Gwinn R, Hong Y, OToole R . Implicitly learned suppression of irrelevant spatial locations. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016; 23(6):1873-1881. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1065-y. View

Yu H, Allenmark F, Muller H, Shi Z . Asymmetric learning of dynamic spatial regularities in visual search: Robust facilitation of predictable target locations, fragile suppression of distractor locations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2023; 49(5):709-724. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0001120. View

10.

Theeuwes J . Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity. Percept Psychophys. 1991; 50(2):184-93. DOI: 10.3758/bf03212219. View

11.

Bogaerts L, van Moorselaar D, Theeuwes J . Does it help to expect distraction? Attentional capture is attenuated by high distractor frequency but not by trial-to-trial predictability. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2022; 48(3):246-261. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000986. View

12.

Itti L, Koch C . Computational modelling of visual attention. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001; 2(3):194-203. DOI: 10.1038/35058500. View

13.

Pinto Y, Olivers C, Theeuwes J . Target uncertainty does not lead to more distraction by singletons: intertrial priming does. Percept Psychophys. 2006; 67(8):1354-61. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193640. View

14.

Theeuwes J . Visual Selection: Usually Fast and Automatic; Seldom Slow and Volitional. J Cogn. 2019; 1(1):29. PMC: 6634613. DOI: 10.5334/joc.13. View

15.

Wang B, Theeuwes J . Statistical regularities modulate attentional capture. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018; 44(1):13-17. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000472. View

16.

Geng J, Won B, Carlisle N . Distractor ignoring: strategies, learning, and passive filtering. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2021; 28(6):600-606. PMC: 7983343. DOI: 10.1177/0963721419867099. View

17.

Theeuwes J, Van der Burg E . Priming makes a stimulus more salient. J Vis. 2013; 13(3). DOI: 10.1167/13.3.21. View

18.

Theeuwes J, Bogaerts L, van Moorselaar D . What to expect where and when: how statistical learning drives visual selection. Trends Cogn Sci. 2022; 26(10):860-872. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2022.06.001. View

19.

Won B, Kosoyan M, Geng J . Evidence for second-order singleton suppression based on probabilistic expectations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2019; 45(1):125-138. PMC: 8815295. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000594. View

20.

Olson I, Chun M . Temporal contextual cuing of visual attention. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001; 27(5):1299-313. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.27.5.1299. View