Cargando…
The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and When Not?
There has been a long-standing debate concerning whether we are able to resist attention capture by salient distractors. The so-called “signal suppression hypothesis” of Gaspelin and Luck (2018) claimed to have resolved this debate. According to this view, salient stimuli “naturally attempt to captu...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Ubiquity Press
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10327859/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37426061 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.251 |
_version_ | 1785069686956752896 |
---|---|
author | Theeuwes, Jan |
author_facet | Theeuwes, Jan |
author_sort | Theeuwes, Jan |
collection | PubMed |
description | There has been a long-standing debate concerning whether we are able to resist attention capture by salient distractors. The so-called “signal suppression hypothesis” of Gaspelin and Luck (2018) claimed to have resolved this debate. According to this view, salient stimuli “naturally attempt to capture attention”, yet attention capture may be prevented by a top-down inhibitory mechanism. The current paper describes the conditions in which attention capture by salient distractors can be avoided. Capture by salient items can be avoided when the target is non-salient and therefore difficult to find. Because fine discrimination is needed, a small attentional window is adapted resulting in serial (or partly serial) search. Salient signals outside the focused attentional window do not capture attention anymore not because they are suppressed but because they are ignored. We argue that in studies that have provided evidence for signal suppression, search was likely serial or at least partly serial. When the target is salient, search will be conducted in parallel, and in those cases the salient singleton cannot be ignored nor suppressed but instead will capture attention. We argue that the “signal suppression” account (Gaspelin & Luck, 2018) that seeks to explain resistance to attentional capture has many parallels to classic visual search models such as the “feature integration theory” (Treisman & Gelade, 1980), “feature inhibition” account (Treisman & Sato, 1990), and “guided search” (Wolfe et al, 1989); all models that explain how the serial deployment of attention is guided by the output of earlier parallel processes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10327859 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Ubiquity Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103278592023-07-08 The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and When Not? Theeuwes, Jan J Cogn Commentary There has been a long-standing debate concerning whether we are able to resist attention capture by salient distractors. The so-called “signal suppression hypothesis” of Gaspelin and Luck (2018) claimed to have resolved this debate. According to this view, salient stimuli “naturally attempt to capture attention”, yet attention capture may be prevented by a top-down inhibitory mechanism. The current paper describes the conditions in which attention capture by salient distractors can be avoided. Capture by salient items can be avoided when the target is non-salient and therefore difficult to find. Because fine discrimination is needed, a small attentional window is adapted resulting in serial (or partly serial) search. Salient signals outside the focused attentional window do not capture attention anymore not because they are suppressed but because they are ignored. We argue that in studies that have provided evidence for signal suppression, search was likely serial or at least partly serial. When the target is salient, search will be conducted in parallel, and in those cases the salient singleton cannot be ignored nor suppressed but instead will capture attention. We argue that the “signal suppression” account (Gaspelin & Luck, 2018) that seeks to explain resistance to attentional capture has many parallels to classic visual search models such as the “feature integration theory” (Treisman & Gelade, 1980), “feature inhibition” account (Treisman & Sato, 1990), and “guided search” (Wolfe et al, 1989); all models that explain how the serial deployment of attention is guided by the output of earlier parallel processes. Ubiquity Press 2023-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10327859/ /pubmed/37426061 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.251 Text en Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Commentary Theeuwes, Jan The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and When Not? |
title | The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and When Not? |
title_full | The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and When Not? |
title_fullStr | The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and When Not? |
title_full_unstemmed | The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and When Not? |
title_short | The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and When Not? |
title_sort | attentional capture debate: when can we avoid salient distractors and when not? |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10327859/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37426061 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.251 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT theeuwesjan theattentionalcapturedebatewhencanweavoidsalientdistractorsandwhennot AT theeuwesjan attentionalcapturedebatewhencanweavoidsalientdistractorsandwhennot |