CONTINGENT ATTENTIONAL CAPTURE BY ITEMS IN SELECTIVELY IGNORED LOCATIONS

Bryan R. Burnham, PhDThe University of Scranton

IntroductionABSTRACT: Munneke, Van der Stigchel and Theeuwes (2008) demonstrated that distractor interference was reduced when a distractor appeared in a selectively ignored location; however, Moher and Egeth (2012) found that distractor interference was unaffected and responses were slower when a distractor appeared in an ignored color. Thus, locations, not features, can be selectively ignored. This study used a spatial cuing task similar to that used by Folk, Remington and Johnston (1992) to examine whether contingent attentional capture was affected when a salient, target feature-relevant cue appeared in an ignored location. The results showed that cuing effects by target feature-relevant cues were unaffected when the cue appeared in a to-be-ignored location than in a non-ignored location. Thus, target-relevant features can override an observer’s decision to ignore a location; however, responses were overall slower when cues appeared in the to-be-ignored location, suggesting they interfered with target localization.

ABSTRACT: Munneke, Van der Stigchel and Theeuwes (2008) demonstrated that distractor interference was reduced when a distractor appeared in a selectively ignored location; however, Moher and Egeth (2012) found that distractor interference was unaffected and responses were slower when a distractor appeared in an ignored color. Thus, locations, not features, can be selectively ignored. This study used a spatial cuing task similar to that used by Folk, Remington and Johnston (1992) to examine whether contingent attentional capture was affected when a salient, target feature-relevant cue appeared in an ignored location. The results showed that cuing effects by target feature-relevant cues were unaffected when the cue appeared in a to-be-ignored location than in a non-ignored location. Thus, target-relevant features can override an observer’s decision to ignore a location; however, responses were overall slower when cues appeared in the to-be-ignored location, suggesting they interfered with target localization.

Introduction Questions my lab is addressing:

Can locations be selectively ignored? What if an important item appears in a to-

be-ignored location? Is contingent attentional capture affected

when cues appear in to-be-ignored locations?

BackgroundMunneke, Van der Stigchel & Theeuwes (2008) Examined whether cuing a location to

ignore influenced selection of an item in that location T / ┴ target I distractor (present or absent)

BackgroundMunneke, Van der Stigchel & Theeuwes (2008) Interference was smaller when the

distractor’s location was cued to be ignored

BackgroundMoher & Egeth (2012) Examined whether an item feature

(color) could be ignored B/F target b/f distractor (compatible or incompatible)

E2E1

BackgroundMoher & Egeth (2012) RTs were greater on ignore trials Compatibility effect was larger on ignore

trials

E1

E2

Present Study Munneke et al.’s (2008) results suggest

locations can be selectively ignored Moher & Egeth’s (2012) results suggest

item features cannot be selectively ignored

Q: What effect will a feature-relevant item have on attention if it appears in a to-be-ignored location? Will it be ignored? Will it capture attention? Maybe there will be a reduced capture effect?

Experiment 1 Modified cuing task

Arrow cue indicated the to-be-ignored location

+

+

+

+

+

=

XX =+

X +

Fixation(800-1200 ms)

Ignore Location(1500 ms)

Cue(50 ms)

Delay(100 ms)

Target(Until Response)

or or

Blocked Within-Ss

Between-Ss

Experiment 1

++=

XX =+Valid

+=

XX =+Invalid

+=

XX =+Ignore

Cue Location(Randomized within blocks)

+

+

Experiment 1 n = 31 University of Scranton

Undergraduates n = 14 in Red Target Group n = 17 in Onset Target Group

Design: 2 (Target: Red, Onset) x 2 (Cue: Red, Onset) x 3 (Cue Location: Valid, Invalid, Ignore)

Reporting only RT analyses Analyses on errors were similar Error bars are 95% CIs

Experiment 1 Results Target x Cue x Cue Location (contingent

capture) F(2, 58) = 32.37, MSE = 327.66, p < .0001, RTValid < RTInvalid = RTIgnore

Valid Invalid Ignore Valid Invalid Ignore450

475

500

525

550

575

600

625

650Red Cue Onset Cue

RT (m

s)

Red Target Onset Target

Invalid - Valid

Ignore - Valid

Ignore - Invalid

Invalid - Valid

Ignore - Valid

Ignore - Invalid

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Red Cue Onset Cue

Cuin

g Eff

ect (

ms)

Red Target Onset Target

Experiment 1 Results Issue: Was ignored location actually ignored?

Examined RTs as a function of ignored location distance

“Distance Effect” F(1, 29) = 21.18, MSE = 2309, p < .0001,

X

X= =+

X

X= =+

X

X= =+or

Ignore Location AdjacentIgnore Location Opposite

Condition M 95% CIIgnore Location Adjacent 568 ms ± 30 msIgnore Location Opposite 539 ms ± 28 msDistance Effect 29 ms ± 13 ms

Experiment 1 Summary Target-relevant cue captured attention

when it appeared in a to-be-ignored location

Contingent capture effects were equivalent for cues at invalid locations and ignored locations

But, was ignored location actually ignored? Experiment 2 included an Ignore Location

Absent block and Ignore Location Present block

Experiment 2 Ignore Location Present Block (Same as

E1)

+

+

+

+

+

=

XX =+

X +

Fixation(800-1200 ms)

Ignore Location(1500 ms)

Cue(50 ms)

Delay(100 ms)

Target(Until Response)

or or

Blocked Within-Ss

Between-Ss

Experiment 2 Ignore Location Absent Block

+

+

+

+

+

=

XX =+

X +

Fixation(800-1200 ms)

No Ignore Location(1500 ms)

Cue(50 ms)

Delay(100 ms)

Target(Until Response)

or or

Blocked Within-Ss

Between-Ss

Experiment 2 n = 54 University of Scranton

Undergraduates n = 26 Red Target n = 28 Onset Target Ignore Location Present block vs. Absent block

was counterbalanced across subjects Analysis 1: Compared invalid-valid cuing

effects between Ignore Location Present vs. Absent blocks Used first blocks only due to interactions with

Ignore Location Block Order Analysis 2: Same as E1 on Ignore

Location Present Block

Experiment 2 Results Analysis 1: Main effect of Ignore Location

block F(1, 50) = 8.51, MSE = 36078, p = .004, 15 Found no interactions with Ignore Location

Presence vs. AbsenceCondition M 95% CIIgnore Location Present

589 ms ± 37 ms

Ignore Location Absent

513 ms ± 37 ms

Difference 76 ms*

± 53 ms

Experiment 2 Results Analysis 1: Target x Cue x Cue Location

F(1, 50) = 35.68, MSE = 573, p < .0001, Contingent capture same across blocks

Valid Invalid Valid Invalid400425450475500525550575600625650675700

Red Target

Red Cue

Onset Cue

Resp

onse

Tim

e (m

s)

Ignore Loc. Ab-sent

Ignore Loc. Present

Valid Invalid Valid Invalid400425450475500525550575600625650675700

Onset Target

Red Cue

Onset CueRe

spon

se T

ime

(ms)

Ignore Loc. Ab-sent

Ignore Loc. Present

Experiment 2 Results Analysis 2: Target x Cue x Cue Location

(contingent capture) F(2, 50) = 15.99, MSE = 635, p < .001, RTValid < RTInvalid = RTIgnore

Valid Invalid Ignore Valid Invalid Ignore450

475

500

525

550

575

600

625

650

675

700Red Cue

Resp

onse

Tim

e (m

s)

Red Target Onset Target

Invalid - Valid

Ignore - Valid

Ignore - Invalid

Invalid - Valid

Ignore - Valid

Ignore - Invalid

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Red Cue Onset Cue

Cuin

g Eff

ect (

ms)

Red Target Onset Target

Experiment 2 Results Non-Significant “Distance Effect”

F(1, 22) = 1.83, MSE = 5688, p = .190,

Condition M 95% CIIgnore Location Adjacent

589 ms ± 47 ms

Ignore Location Opposite

574 ms ± 41 ms

Distance Effect 15 ms ± 23 ms

Overall Summary Contingent capture effects by cues in

the to-be-ignored locations were equivalent to contingent capture effects by cues in the possible target locations

Subjects seemed to ignore the location indicated

Feature-relevant items seem to capture attention in to-be-ignored locations

Moving Forward Was the ignored location really ignored?

Distance effects are somewhat informative Probe detection in minority of trials?

Other versions: Ran a color feature search (non-singleton)

version Ran a version that manipulated CTOA to

examine IOR We may try a spatial blink version with a cue to

where distractor will appear Maybe next year…

Conclusion: Feature relevance seems to override intent to ignore a location

Thanks for your attention (or ignoring ).

bryan.burnham@scranton.edu

Experiment 3 Manipulated CTOA in Ignore Cue Present

Condition

+

+

+

+

+

=

XX =+

X +

Fixation(800-1200 ms)

Ignore Cue(1500 ms)

Spatial Cue(50 ms)

Delay(0 or 700 ms)

Target(Until Response)

or or

Blocked Within-Ss

Between-SsBlocked Within-Ss

Experiment 3 n = 25 University of Scranton

Undergraduates n = 12 Red Target n = 13 Onset Target

2 (Target) x 2 (Cue) x 3 (Cue Location) x 2 (CTOA: 50 ms vs. 750 ms) design Difference between invalid cue and ignore

conditions F(2, 46) = 15.40, MSE = 402, p < .0001, Cue Location

M SD

Valid 558 ms

77 ms

Invalid 568 ms

85 ms

Ignore 573 ms

83 ms

10 ms, p =.004 5 ms, p =.004

15 ms, p = .001

Experiment 3: Results Four way interaction not significant (p

= .220) Cue x Cue Location x CTOA

Color Target: F < 1 Cue x Cue Location: F(2, 22) = 7.36, MSE = 709, p

= .004, Onset Target: F(2, 24) = 8.49, MSE = 440, p = .002,

41

Valid Invalid Ignore Valid Invalid Ignore Valid Invalid Ignore Valid Invalid Ignore50 ms CTOA 750 ms CTOA 50 ms CTOA 750 ms CTOA

Red Target Onset Target

450

475

500

525

550

575

600

625

650Red Cue Onset Cue

RT (m

s)

Experiment 3: Results Congruent with results of Gibson &

Amelio (2000)

Short CTOA results replicated E1 and Ignore Cue Present condition from E2

Invalid - Valid

Ignore - Valid

Ignore - Invalid

Invalid - Valid

Ignore - Valid

Ignore - Invalid

05

101520253035404550

Red TargetRed CueOnset Cue

Cuin

g Eff

ect (

ms)

Invalid - Valid

Ignore - Valid

Ignore - Invalid

Invalid - Valid

Ignore - Valid

Ignore - Invalid

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40Onset Target

Red CueOnset Cue

Cuin

g Eff

ect (

ms)

Experiment 1 Results Issue: Was ignored location actually

ignored? Secondary analysis compared valid and

invalid trials as a function of ignored location distance from target

X

X= =+

X

X= =+

X

X= =+or

Ignore Location Adjacent

Ignore Location Opposite

X

X= =+

X

X= =+

X

X= =+or

Cue Valid

Cue Invalid