Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Irrelevant singletons in visual search do not capture attention but can produce nonspatial filtering costs
Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3323-7357
Department of Experimental and Biological Psychology, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich.
2011 (English)In: Journal of cognitive neuroscience, ISSN 0898-929X, E-ISSN 1530-8898, Vol. 23, no 3, p. 645-660Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

It is not clear how salient distractors affect visual processing. The debate concerning the issue of whether irrelevant salient items capture spatial attention [e.g., Theeuwes, J., Atchley, P., & Kramer, A. F. On the time course of top-down and bottom- up control of visual attention. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive performance (pp. 105-124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000] or produce only nonspatial interference in the form of, for example, filtering costs [Folk, Ch. L., & Remington, R. Top-down modulation of preattentive processing: Testing the recovery account of contingent capture. Visual Cognition, 14, 445-465, 2006] has not yet been settled. The present ERP study examined deployment of attention in visual search displays that contained an additional irrelevant singleton. Display-locked N2pc showed that attention was allocated to the target and not to the irrelevant singleton. However, the onset of the N2pc to the target was delayed when the irrelevant singleton was presented in the opposite hemifield relative to the same hemifield. Thus, although attention was successfully focused on the target, the irrelevant singleton produced some interference resulting in a delayed allocation of attention to the target. A subsequent probe discrimination task allowed for locking ERPs to probe onsets and investigating the dynamics of sensory gain control for probes appearing at relevant (target) or irrelevant (singleton distractor) positions. Probelocked P1 showed sensory gain for probes positioned at the target location but no such effect for irrelevant singletons in the additional singleton condition. Taken together, the present data support the claim that irrelevant singletons do not capture attention. If they produce any interference, it is rather due to nonspatial filtering costs.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 23, no 3, p. 645-660
National Category
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics
Research subject
Engineering Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-2754DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21390Local ID: 070d918f-880b-4553-a955-4553211a21ebOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-2754DiVA, id: diva2:975607
Note
Upprättat; 2011; 20160705 (andbra)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2017-11-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Wykowska, Agnieszka

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wykowska, Agnieszka
In the same journal
Journal of cognitive neuroscience
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 5 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf