» Articles » PMID: 38900526

Why Are Some Individuals Better at Using Negative Attentional Templates to Suppress Distractors? Exploration of Interindividual Differences in Cognitive Control Efficiency

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2024 Jun 20
PMID 38900526
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Negative templates are based on foreknowledge of distractor features and can lead to more efficient visual search at the group level. However, large individual differences exist in the size of benefits induced by negative cues. The cognitive factors underlying these interindividual differences remain unknown. Previous research has suggested higher engagement of proactive control for negative templates compared to positive templates. We thus hypothesized that interindividual differences in proactive control efficiency may explain the large variability in negative cue benefits. A large data set made up of data from two previously published studies was reanalyzed ( = 139), with eye movements recorded in 36 participants. Individual proactive control efficiency was measured through reaction time (RT) variability. Participants with higher proactive control efficiency exhibited larger benefits after negative cues across two critical measures: Individuals with higher proactive control showed larger RT benefits following negative compared to neutral cues; similarly, individuals with higher proactive control exhibited lower first saccades to cued distractor items. No such relationship was observed for positive cues. Our results confirmed the existence of large interindividual differences in the benefits induced by negative attentional templates. Critically, we show that proactive control drives these interindividual differences in negative template use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Citing Articles

Similar Quality of Visual Working Memory Representations between Negative and Positive Attentional Templates.

Chidharom M, Zafarmand M, Carlisle N J Cogn. 2024; 7(1):55.

PMID: 39035075 PMC: 11259102. DOI: 10.5334/joc.380.


Distinct mechanisms of attentional suppression: exploration of trait factors underlying cued- and learned-suppression.

Chidharom M, Carlisle N Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024; 9(1):26.

PMID: 38691325 PMC: 11063026. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-024-00554-w.


Neurophysiological Measures of Proactive and Reactive Control in Negative Template Use.

Chidharom M, Carlisle N J Cogn Neurosci. 2023; 35(7):1063-1074.

PMID: 37052508 PMC: 10580290. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_01996.

References
1.
Moher J, Egeth H . The ignoring paradox: cueing distractor features leads first to selection, then to inhibition of to-be-ignored items. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012; 74(8):1590-605. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-012-0358-0. View

2.
Beck V, Luck S, Hollingworth A . Whatever you do, don't look at the...: Evaluating guidance by an exclusionary attentional template. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017; 44(4):645-662. PMC: 5897154. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000485. View

3.
Zhang Z, Carlisle N . Assessing recoding accounts of negative attentional templates using behavior and eye tracking. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2022; 49(4):509-532. PMC: 10580292. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0001183. View

4.
Wostmann M, Stormer V, Obleser J, Addleman D, Andersen S, Gaspelin N . Ten simple rules to study distractor suppression. Prog Neurobiol. 2022; 213:102269. PMC: 9069241. DOI: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2022.102269. View

5.
Ehlis A, Deppermann S, Fallgatter A . Performance monitoring and post-error adjustments in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: an EEG analysis. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2018; 43(6):396-406. PMC: 6203547. DOI: 10.1503/jpn.170118. View