Distractor probabilities modulate flanker task performance
- PDF / 2,905,672 Bytes
- 16 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 55 Downloads / 213 Views
Distractor probabilities modulate flanker task performance Eli Bulger 1 & Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham 1 & Abigail L. Noyce 1,2 Accepted: 13 September 2020 # The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2020
Abstract Expectations about upcoming events help humans to effectively filter out potential distractors and respond more efficiently to taskrelevant inputs. While previous work has emphasized the role of expectations about task-relevant inputs, less is known about the role that expectations play in suppressing specific distractors. To address this question, we manipulated the probabilities of different flanker configurations in the Eriksen flanker task. Across four studies, we found robust evidence for sensitivity to the probability of flankers, with an approximately logarithmic relationship between the likelihood of a particular flanker configuration and the accuracy of subjects’ responses. Subjects were also sensitive to length of runs of repeated targets, but minimally sensitive to length of runs of repeated flankers. Two studies used chevron stimuli, and two used letters (confirming that results generalize with greater dissimilarity between stimuli). Expanding the set of stimuli (thus reducing the dominance of any one exemplar) eliminated the effect. Our findings suggest that expectations about distractors form in response to statistical regularities at multiple timescales, and that their effects are strongest when stimuli are geometrically similar and subjects are able to respond to trials quickly. Unexpected distractors could disrupt performance, most likely via a form of attentional capture. This work demonstrates how expectations can influence attention in complex cognitive settings, and illuminates the multiple, nested factors that contribute. Keywords Attention: Selective . Attention and executive control . Expectation
The human capacity for selective attention lets us filter relevant from irrelevant sensory inputs (James, 1890), facilitating processing of the attended stimuli (Foster, Bsales, & Awh, 2020; Payne & Sekuler, 2014). To effectively deploy attention, we rely on a wide range of cues, from spatial location (Johnston & Pashler, 1990) to sensory modality (Keller, Payne, & Sekuler, 2017; Keller & Sekuler, 2015; Michalka, Kong, Rosen, Shinn-Cunningham, & Somers, 2015) to specific perceptual features (Arman, Ciaramitaro, & Boynton, 2006; Carrasco, 2011; Treue & Martínez Trujillo, 1999). Selective attention comprises not only increased processing of task-relevant information but also increased inhibition of task-irrelevant, distracting sensory input (Neumann & Deschepper, 1991; Tipper, 2001). This inhibition can also be established proactively, in anticipation of an event that one wishes to ignore (Aron, 2011; Braver, 2012). It is clear that expectations about distractors can improve selective attention * Abigail L. Noyce [email protected] 1
Neuroscience Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
2
Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
(Noonan, Crittenden, Je
Data Loading...
