Journal articles: 'Distractor suppression'

1

Wang, Benchi, Joram van Driel, Eduard Ort, and Jan Theeuwes. "Anticipatory Distractor Suppression Elicited by Statistical Regularities in Visual Search." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 31, no. 10 (October 2019): 1535–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01433.

Full text

Abstract:

Salient yet irrelevant objects often capture our attention and interfere with our daily tasks. Distraction by salient objects can be reduced by suppressing the location where they are likely to appear. The question we addressed here was whether suppression of frequent distractor locations is already implemented beforehand, in anticipation of the stimulus. Using EEG, we recorded cortical activity of human participants searching for a target while ignoring a salient distractor. The distractor was presented more often at one location than at any other location. We found reduced capture for distractors at frequent locations, indicating that participants learned to avoid distraction. Critically, we found evidence for “proactive suppression” as already “prior to display onset,” there was enhanced power in parieto-occipital alpha oscillations contralateral to the frequent distractor location—a signal known to occur in anticipation of irrelevant information. Locked to display onset, ERP analysis showed a distractor suppression-related distractor positivity (PD) component for this location. Importantly, this PD was found regardless of whether distracting information was presented at the frequent location. In addition, there was an early PD component representing an early attentional index of the frequent distractor location. Our results show anticipatory (proactive) suppression of frequent distractor locations in visual search already starting prior to display onset.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Failing, Michel, and Jan Theeuwes. "More capture, more suppression: Distractor suppression due to statistical regularities is determined by the magnitude of attentional capture." Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 27, no. 1 (December 17, 2019): 86–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01672-z.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractSalient yet irrelevant objects often interfere with daily tasks by capturing attention against our best interests and intentions. Recent research has shown that through implicit learning, distraction by a salient object can be reduced by suppressing the location where this distractor is likely to appear. Here, we investigated whether suppression of such high-probability distractor locations is an all-or-none phenomenon or specifically tuned to the degree of interference caused by the distractor. In two experiments, we varied the salience of two task-irrelevant singleton distractors each of which was more likely to appear in one specific location in the visual field. We show that the magnitude of interference by a distractor determines the magnitude of suppression for its high-probability location: The more salient a distractor, the more it becomes suppressed when appearing in its high-probability location. We conclude that distractor suppression emerges as a consequence of the spatial regularities regarding the location of a distractor as well as its potency to interfere with attentional selection.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Kerzel, Dirk, and Nicolas Burra. "Capture by Context Elements, Not Attentional Suppression of Distractors, Explains the PD with Small Search Displays." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 32, no. 6 (June 2020): 1170–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01535.

Full text

Abstract:

Top–down control of attention allows us to resist attentional capture by salient stimuli that are irrelevant to our current goals. Recently, it was proposed that attentional suppression of salient distractors contributes to top–down control by biasing attention away from the distractor. With small search displays, attentional suppression of salient distractors may even result in reduced RTs on distractor-present trials. In support of attentional suppression, electrophysiological measures revealed a positivity between 200 and 300 msec contralateral to the distractor, which has been referred to as distractor positivity (PD). We reexamined distractor benefits with small search displays and found that the positivity to the distractor was followed by a negativity to the distractor. The negativity, referred to as N2pc, is considered an index of attentional selection of the contralateral element. Thus, attentional suppression of the distractor (PD) preceded attentional capture (N2pc) by the distractor, which is at odds with the idea that attentional suppression avoids attentional capture by the distractor. Instead, we suggest that the initial “PD” is not a positivity to the distractor but rather a negativity (N2pc) to the contralateral context element, suggesting that, initially, the context captured attention. Subsequently, the distractor was selected because, paradoxically, participants searched all lateral target positions (even when irrelevant) before they examined the vertical positions. Consistent with this idea, search times were shorter for lateral than vertical targets. In summary, the early voltage difference in small search displays is unrelated to distractor suppression but may reflect capture by the context.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Schall, Jeffrey D., Takashi R. Sato, Kirk G. Thompson, Amanda A. Vaughn, and Chi-Hung Juan. "Effects of Search Efficiency on Surround Suppression During Visual Selection in Frontal Eye Field." Journal of Neurophysiology 91, no. 6 (June 2004): 2765–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00780.2003.

Full text

Abstract:

Previous research has shown that visually responsive neurons in the frontal eye field of macaque monkeys select the target for a saccade during efficient, pop-out visual search through suppression of the representation of the nontarget distractors. For a fraction of these neurons, the magnitude of this distractor suppression varied with the proximity of the target to the receptive field, exhibiting more suppression of the distractor representation when the target was nearby than when the target was distant. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the variation of distractor suppression related to target proximity varied with target-distractor feature similarity. The effect of target proximity on distractor suppression did not vary with target-distractor similarity and therefore may be an endogenous property of the selection process.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Serences, John T., Steven Yantis, Andrew Culberson, and Edward Awh. "Preparatory Activity in Visual Cortex Indexes Distractor Suppression During Covert Spatial Orienting." Journal of Neurophysiology 92, no. 6 (December 2004): 3538–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00435.2004.

Full text

Abstract:

The deployment of spatial attention induces retinotopically specific increases in neural activity that occur even before a target stimulus is presented. Although this preparatory activity is thought to prime the attended regions, thereby improving perception and recognition, it is not yet clear whether this activity is a manifestation of signal enhancement at the attended locations or suppression of interference from distracting stimuli (or both). We investigated the functional role of these preparatory shifts by isolating a distractor suppression component of selection. Behavioral data have shown that manipulating the probability that visual distractors will appear modulates distractor suppression without concurrent changes in signal enhancement. In 2 experiments, functional magnetic resonance imaging revealed increased cue-evoked activity in retinotopically specific regions of visual cortex when increased distractor suppression was elicited by a high probability of distractors. This finding directly links cue-evoked preparatory activity in visual cortex with a distractor suppression component of visual selective attention.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Feldmann-Wüstefeld, Tobias, Niko A. Busch, and Anna Schubö. "Failed Suppression of Salient Stimuli Precedes Behavioral Errors." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 32, no. 2 (February 2020): 367–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01502.

Full text

Abstract:

Our visual system is constantly confronted with more information than it can process. To deal with the limited capacity, attention allows us to enhance relevant information and suppress irrelevant information. Particularly, the suppression of salient irrelevant stimuli has shown to be important as it prevents attention to be captured and thus attentional resources to be wasted. This study aimed at directly connecting failures to suppress distraction with a neural marker of suppression, the distractor positivity (Pd). We measured participants' EEG signal while they performed a visual search task in which they had to report a digit inside a shape target while ignoring distractors, one of which could be a salient color singleton. Reports of target digits served as a behavioral index of enhancement, and reports of color distractor digits served as a behavioral index of failed suppression, each measured against reports of neutral distractor digits serving as a baseline. Participants reported the target identity more often than any distractor identity. The singleton identity was reported least often, suggesting suppression of the singleton below baseline. Suppression of salient stimuli was absent in the beginning and then increased throughout the experiment. When the singleton identity was reported, the Pd was observed in a later time window, suggesting that behavioral errors were preceded by failed suppression. Our results provide evidence for the signal suppression hypothesis that states salient items have to be actively suppressed to avoid attentional capture. Our results also provide direct evidence that the Pd is reflecting such active suppression.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

van Moorselaar, Dirk, and Jan Theeuwes. "Spatial suppression due to statistical regularities in a visual detection task." Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 84, no. 2 (November 12, 2021): 450–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02330-0.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractIncreasing evidence demonstrates that observers can learn the likely location of salient singleton distractors during visual search. To date, the reduced attentional capture at high-probability distractor locations has typically been examined using so called compound search, in which by design a target is always present. Here, we explored whether statistical distractor learning can also be observed in a visual detection task, in which participants respond target present if the singleton target is present and respond target absent when the singleton target is absent. If so, this allows us to examine suppression of the location that is likely to contain a distractor both in the presence, but critically also in the absence, of a priority signal generated by the target singleton. In an online variant of the additional singleton paradigm, observers had to indicate whether a unique shape was present or absent, while ignoring a colored singleton, which appeared with a higher probability in one specific location. We show that attentional capture was reduced, but not absent, at high-probability distractor locations, irrespective of whether the display contained a target or not. By contrast, target processing at the high-probability distractor location was selectively impaired on distractor-present displays. Moreover, all suppressive effects were characterized by a gradient such that suppression scaled with the distance to the high-probability distractor location. We conclude that statistical distractor learning can be examined in visual detection tasks, and discuss the implications for attentional suppression due to statistical learning.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Hickey, Clayton, Vincent Di Lollo, and John J. McDonald. "Electrophysiological Indices of Target and Distractor Processing in Visual Search." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21, no. 4 (April 2009): 760–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21039.

Full text

Abstract:

Attentional selection of a target presented among distractors can be indexed with an event-related potential (ERP) component known as the N2pc. Theoretical interpretation of the N2pc has suggested that it reflects a fundamental mechanism of attention that shelters the cortical representation of targets by suppressing neural activity stemming from distractors. Results from fields other than human electrophysiology, however, suggest that attention does not act solely through distractor suppression; rather, it modulates the processing of both target and distractors. We conducted four ERP experiments designed to investigate whether the N2pc reflects multiple attentional mechanisms. Our goal was to reconcile ostensibly conflicting outcomes obtained in electrophysiological studies of attention with those obtained using other methodologies. Participants viewed visual search arrays containing one target and one distractor. In Experiments 1 through 3, the distractor was isoluminant with the background, and therefore, did not elicit early lateralized ERP activity. This work revealed a novel contralateral ERP component that appears to reflect direct suppression of the cortical representation of the distractor. We accordingly name this component the distractor positivity (PD). In Experiment 4, an ERP component associated with target processing was additionally isolated. We refer to this component as the target negativity (NT). We believe that the N2pc reflects the summation of the PD and NT, and that these discrete components may have been confounded in earlier electrophysiological studies. Overall, this study demonstrates that attention acts on both target and distractor representations, and that this can be indexed in the visual ERP.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

McSorley, Eugene, Patrick Haggard, and Robin Walker. "Time Course of Oculomotor Inhibition Revealed by Saccade Trajectory Modulation." Journal of Neurophysiology 96, no. 3 (September 2006): 1420–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00315.2006.

Full text

Abstract:

Selecting a stimulus as the target for a goal-directed movement involves inhibiting other competing possible responses. Both target and distractor stimuli activate populations of neurons in topographic oculomotor maps such as the superior colliculus. Local inhibitory interconnections between these populations ensure only one saccade target is selected. Suppressing saccades to distractors may additionally involve inhibiting corresponding map regions to bias the local competition. Behavioral evidence of these inhibitory processes comes from the effects of distractors on oculomotor and manual trajectories. Individual saccades may initially deviate either toward or away from a distractor, but the source of this variability has not been investigated. Here we investigate the relation between distractor-related deviation of trajectory and saccade latency. Targets were presented with, or without, distractors, and the deviation of saccade trajectories arising from the presence of distractors was measured. A fixation gap paradigm was used to manipulate latency independently of the influence of competing distractors. Shorter-latency saccades deviated toward distractors and longer-latency saccades deviated away from distractors. The transition between deviation toward or away from distractors occurred at a saccade latency of around 200 ms. This shows that the time course of the inhibitory process involved in distractor related suppression is relatively slow.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Lee, Jeongmi, Carly J. Leonard, Steven J. Luck, and Joy J. Geng. "Dynamics of Feature-based Attentional Selection during Color–Shape Conjunction Search." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 30, no. 12 (December 2018): 1773–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01318.

Full text

Abstract:

Feature-based attentional selection is accomplished by increasing the gain of sensory neurons encoding target-relevant features while decreasing that of other features. But how do these mechanisms work when targets and distractors share features? We investigated this in a simplified color–shape conjunction search task using ERP components (N2pc, PD, and SPCN) that index lateralized attentional processing. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the presence and frequency of color distractors while holding shape distractors constant. We tested the hypothesis that the color distractor would capture attention, requiring active suppression such that processing of the target can continue. Consistent with this hypothesis, we found that color distractors consistently captured attention, as indexed by a significant N2pc, but were reactively suppressed (indexed by PD). Interestingly, when the color distractor was present, target processing was sustained (indexed by SPCN), suggesting that the dynamics of attentional competition involved distractor suppression interlinked with sustained target processing. In Experiment 2, we examined the contribution of shape to the dynamics of attentional competition under similar conditions. In contrast to color distractors, shape distractors did not reliably capture attention, even when the color distractor was very frequent and attending to target shape would be beneficial. Together, these results suggest that target-colored objects are prioritized during color–shape conjunction search, and the ability to select the target is delayed while target-colored distractors are actively suppressed.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Valsecchi, Matteo, and Massimo Turatto. "Distractor filtering is affected by local and global distractor probability, emerges very rapidly but is resistant to extinction." Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 83, no. 6 (May 4, 2021): 2458–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02303-3.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractEffects of statistical learning (SL) of distractor location have been shown to persist when the probabilities of distractor occurrence are equalized across different locations in a so-called extinction phase. Here, we asked whether lingering effects of SL are still observed when a true extinction phase, during which the distractor is completely omitted, is implemented. The results showed that, once established, the effects of SL of distractor location do survive the true extinction phase, indicating that the pattern of suppression in the saliency map is encoded in a form of long-lasting memory. Quite unexpectedly, we also found that the amount of filtering implemented at a given location is not only dictated by the specific rate of distractor occurrence at that location, as previously found, but also by the global distractor probability. We therefore suggest that the visual attention system could be more or less (implicitly) prone to suppression as a function of how often the distractor is encountered overall, and that this suppressive bias affects the degree of suppression at the specific distractor-probability location. Finally, our results showed that the effects of SL of distractor location can appear much more rapidly than has been previously documented, requiring a few trials to become manifest. Hence, SL of distractor location appears to have an asymmetrical rate of learning during acquisition and extinction, while the amount of suppression exerted at a specific distractor location is modulated by distractor contextual probabilistic information.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Geden, Michael, Ana-Maria Staicu, and Jing Feng. "Reduced Target Facilitation and Increased Distractor Suppression During Mind Wandering." Experimental Psychology 65, no. 6 (November 2018): 345–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000417.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract. The perceptual decoupling hypothesis suggests a general mechanism that while mind wandering, our attention is detached from our environment, resulting in diminished processing of external stimuli. This study focused on examining two possible specific mechanisms: the global suppression of all external stimuli, and a combination of reduced target facilitation and increased distractor suppression. An attentional capture task was used in which certain trials measured distractor suppression effects and others assessed target facilitation effects. The global suppression account predicts negative impacts on both types of trials, while the combined mechanisms of reduced target facilitation and increased distractor suppression suggest that only target-present trials would be affected. Results showed no cost of mind wandering on target-absent trials, but significant distractor suppression and target facilitation effects during mind wandering on target-present trials. These findings suggest that rather than perceptual decoupling globally suppressing all stimuli, it is more selective, falling in line with evidence on strong top-down modulation.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Kawashima, Tomoya, and Kaoru Amano. "Can enhancement and suppression concurrently guide attention? An assessment at the individual level." F1000Research 11 (September 26, 2022): 232. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.77430.2.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Although people can pay attention to targets while ignoring distractors, previous research suggests that target enhancement and distractor suppression work separately and independently. Here, we sought to replicate previous findings and re-establish their independence. Methods: We employed an internet-based psychological experiment. We presented participants with a visual search task in which they searched for a specified shape with or without a singleton. We replicated the singleton-presence benefit in search performance, but this effect was limited to cases where the target color was fixed across all trials. In a randomly intermixed probe task (30% of all trials), the participants searched for a letter among colored probes; we used this task to assess how far attention was separately allocated toward the target or distractor dimensions. Results: We found a negative correlation between target enhancement and distractor suppression, indicating that the participants who paid closer attention to target features ignored distractor features less effectively and vice versa. Averaged data showed no benefit from target color or cost from distractor color, possibly because of the substantial differences in strategy across participants. Conclusions: These results suggest that target enhancement and distractor suppression guide attention in mutually dependent ways and that the relative contribution of these components depends on the participants’ search strategy.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Kawashima, Tomoya, and Kaoru Amano. "Can enhancement and suppression concurrently guide attention? An assessment at the individual level." F1000Research 11 (February 24, 2022): 232. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.77430.1.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Although people can pay attention to targets while ignoring distractors, previous research suggests that target enhancement and distractor suppression work separately and independently. Here, we sought to replicate previous findings and re-establish their independence. Methods: We employed an internet-based psychological experiment. We presented participants with a visual search task in which they searched for a specified shape with or without a singleton. We replicated the singleton-presence benefit in search performance, but this effect was limited to cases where the target color was fixed across all trials. In a randomly intermixed probe task (30% of all trials), the participants searched for a letter among colored probes; we used this task to assess how far attention was separately allocated toward the target or distractor dimensions. Results: We found a negative correlation between target enhancement and distractor suppression, indicating that the participants who paid closer attention to target features ignored distractor features less effectively and vice versa. Averaged data showed no benefit from target color or cost from distractor color, possibly because of the substantial differences in strategy across participants. Conclusions: These results suggest that target enhancement and distractor suppression guide attention in mutually dependent ways and that the relative contribution of these components depends on the participants’ search strategy.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Gaspar, John M., and John J. McDonald. "High Level of Trait Anxiety Leads to Salience-Driven Distraction and Compensation." Psychological Science 29, no. 12 (November 2, 2018): 2020–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797618807166.

Full text

Abstract:

Individuals with high levels of anxiety are hypothesized to have impaired executive control functions that would otherwise enable efficient filtering of irrelevant information. Pinpointing specific deficits is difficult, however, because anxious individuals may compensate for deficient control functions by allocating greater effort. Here, we used event-related-potential indices of attentional selection (the N2pc) and suppression (the PD) to determine whether high trait anxiety is associated with a deficit in preventing the misallocation of attention to salient, but irrelevant, visual search distractors. Like their low-anxiety counterparts ( n = 19), highly anxious individuals ( n = 19) were able to suppress the distractor, as evidenced by the presence of a PD. Critically, however, the distractor was found to trigger an earlier N2pc in the high-anxiety group but not in the low-anxiety group. These findings indicate that, whereas individuals with low anxiety can prevent distraction in a proactive fashion, anxious individuals deal with distractors only after they have diverted attention.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

McPeek, Robert M. "Incomplete Suppression of Distractor-Related Activity in the Frontal Eye Field Results in Curved Saccades." Journal of Neurophysiology 96, no. 5 (November 2006): 2699–711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00564.2006.

Full text

Abstract:

Saccades in the presence of distractors show significant trajectory curvature. Based on previous work in the superior colliculus (SC), we speculated that curvature arises when a movement is initiated before competition between the target and distractor goals has been fully resolved. To test this hypothesis, we recorded frontal eye field (FEF) activity for curved and straight saccades in search. In contrast to the SC, activity in FEF is normally poorly correlated with saccade dynamics. However, the FEF, like the SC, is involved in target selection. Thus if curvature is caused by incomplete target selection, we expect to see its neural correlates in the FEF. We found that saccades that curve toward a distractor are accompanied by an increase in perisaccadic activity of FEF neurons coding the distractor location, and saccades that curve away are accompanied by a decrease in activity. In contrast, for FEF neurons coding the target location, there is no significant difference in activity between curved and straight saccades. To establish that the distractor-related activity is causally related to saccade curvature, we applied microstimulation to sites in the FEF before saccades to targets presented without distractors. The stimulation was subthreshold for evoking saccades and the temporal structure of the stimulation train resembled the activity recorded for curved saccades. The resulting movements curved toward the location coded by the stimulation site. These results support the idea that saccade curvature results from incomplete suppression of distractor-related activity during target selection.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Findlay, J. M., R. Walker, V. Brown, I. Gilchrist, and M. Clarke. "Saccade Programming in Strabismic Suppression." Perception 25, no. 1_suppl (August 1996): 47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/v96l0303.

Full text

Abstract:

Individuals with strabismus frequently show a suppression phenomenon in which part of the visual input in one eye is apparently ignored when both eyes are seeing, although the eye may have normal vision when used monocularly. This is often described as an adaptive response to avoid diplopia. We have examined two patients with microstrabismus (angle of squint less than 5 deg) who show strong suppression but with only mild amblyopia. We studied saccade generation in the two eyes using a red — green anaglyph display which allowed us to present stimuli independently to each eye. When single targets were presented in the suppressing eye, saccadic responses usually occurred. However the latencies of these saccades were increased with respect to those elicited from the normal eye (by about 70 ms for one subject and 270 ms for the other). The amplitudes of the saccades were less consistent than those of the normal eye, and saccades were sometimes made in the opposite direction to the target. We also investigated the remote distractor effect. This effect is found consistently in normal subjects and consists of an increase in the latency of a target-elicited saccade when a distractor is simultaneously presented elsewhere in the visual field. When distractors were presented in the suppressing eye, they had no effect on the latency of saccades to a simultaneous target in the other eye. We conclude that visual stimulation in a suppressing eye has no rapid access to the saccadic system.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Matsushima, Ayano, and Masaki Tanaka. "Neuronal Correlates of Multiple Top–Down Signals during Covert Tracking of Moving Objects in Macaque Prefrontal Cortex." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24, no. 10 (October 2012): 2043–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00265.

Full text

Abstract:

Resistance to distraction is a key component of executive functions and is strongly linked to the prefrontal cortex. Recent evidence suggests that neural mechanisms exist for selective suppression of task-irrelevant information. However, neuronal signals related to selective suppression have not yet been identified, whereas nonselective surround suppression, which results from attentional enhancement for relevant stimuli, has been well documented. This study examined single neuron activities in the lateral PFC when monkeys covertly tracked one of randomly moving objects. Although many neurons responded to the target, we also found a group of neurons that exhibited a selective response to the distractor that was visually identical to the target. Because most neurons were insensitive to an additional distractor that explicitly differed in color from the target, the brain seemed to monitor the distractor only when necessary to maintain internal object segregation. Our results suggest that the lateral PFC might provide at least two top–down signals during covert object tracking: one for enhancement of visual processing for the target and the other for selective suppression of visual processing for the distractor. These signals might work together to discriminate objects, thereby regulating both the sensitivity and specificity of target choice during covert object tracking.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Michael, Lars, Ana Böke, and Henry Ipczynski. "The Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Error Rates in the Distractor-Induced Deafness Paradigm." Brain Sciences 12, no. 6 (June 4, 2022): 738. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12060738.

Full text

Abstract:

To further understand how consciousness emerges, certain paradigms inducing distractor-induced perceptual impairments are promising. Neuro-computational models explain the inhibition of conscious perception of targets with suppression of distractor information when the target and distractor share the same features. Because these gating mechanisms are controlled by the prefrontal cortex, transcranial direct current stimulation of this specific region is expected to alter distractor-induced effects depending on the presence and number of distractors. To this end, participants were asked to perform an auditory variant of the distractor-induced blindness paradigm under frontal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Results show the expected distractor-induced deafness effects in a reduction of target detection depending on the number of distractors. While tDCS had no significant effects on target detection per se, error rates due to missed cues are increased under stimulation. Thus, while our variant led to successful replication of behavioral deafness effects, the results under tDCS stimulation indicate that the chosen paradigm may have difficulty too low to respond to stimulation. That the error rates nevertheless led to a tDCS effect may be due to the divided attention between the visual cue and the auditory target.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Huang, Changrun, Ana Vilotijević, Jan Theeuwes, and Mieke Donk. "Proactive distractor suppression elicited by statistical regularities in visual search." Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 28, no. 3 (February 23, 2021): 918–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01891-3.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractIrrelevant salient objects may capture our attention and interfere with visual search. Recently, it was shown that distraction by a salient object is reduced when it is presented more frequently at one location than at other locations. The present study investigates whether this reduced distractor interference is the result of proactive spatial suppression, implemented prior to display onset, or reactive suppression, occurring after attention has been directed to that location. Participants were asked to search for a shape singleton in the presence of an irrelevant salient color singleton which was presented more often at one location (the high-probability location) than at all other locations (the low-probability locations). On some trials, instead of the search task, participants performed a probe task, in which they had to detect the offset of a probe dot. The results of the search task replicated previous findings showing reduced distractor interference in trials in which the salient distractor was presented at the high-probability location as compared with the low-probability locations. The probe task showed that reaction times were longer for probes presented at the high-probability location than at the low-probability locations. These results indicate that through statistical learning the location that is likely to contain a distractor is suppressed proactively (i.e., prior to display onset). It suggests that statistical learning modulates the first feed-forward sweep of information processing by deprioritizing locations that are likely to contain a distractor in the spatial priority map.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Nishida, Satoshi, Tomohiro Tanaka, and Tadashi Ogawa. "Separate evaluation of target facilitation and distractor suppression in the activity of macaque lateral intraparietal neurons during visual search." Journal of Neurophysiology 110, no. 12 (December 15, 2013): 2773–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00360.2013.

Full text

Abstract:

During visual search, neurons in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) discriminate the target from distractors by exhibiting stronger activation when the target appears within the receptive field than when it appears outside the receptive field. It is generally thought that such target-discriminative activity is produced by the combination of target-related facilitation and distractor-related suppression. However, little is known about how the target-discriminative activity is constituted by these two types of neural modulation. To address this issue, we recorded activity from LIP of monkeys performing a visual search task that consisted of target-present and target-absent trials. Monkeys had to make a saccade to a target in the target-present trials, whereas they had to maintain fixation in the target-absent trials, in which only distractors were presented. By introducing the activity from the latter trials as neutral activity, we were able to separate the target-discriminative activity into target-related elevation and distractor-related reduction components. We found that the target-discriminative activity of most LIP neurons consisted of the combination of target-related elevation and distractor-related reduction or only target-related elevation. In contrast, target-discriminative activity composed of only distractor-related reduction was observed for very few neurons. We also found that, on average, target-related elevation was stronger and occurred earlier compared with distractor-related reduction. Finally, we consider possible underlying mechanisms, including lateral inhibitory interactions, responsible for target-discriminative activity in visual search. The present findings provide insight into how neuronal modulations shape target-discriminative activity during visual search.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

de Vries, Ingmar E. J., Ece Savran, Joram van Driel, and Christian N. L. Olivers. "Oscillatory Mechanisms of Preparing for Visual Distraction." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 31, no. 12 (December 2019): 1873–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01460.

Full text

Abstract:

Evidence shows that observers preactivate a target representation in preparation of a visual selection task. In this study, we addressed the question if and how preparing to ignore an anticipated distractor differs from preparing for an anticipated target. We measured EEG while participants memorized a laterally presented color, which was cued to be either a target or a distractor in two subsequent visual search tasks. Decoding the location of items in the search display from EOG channels revealed that, initially, the anticipated distractor attracted attention and could only be ignored later during the trial. This suggests that distractors could not be suppressed in advance but were represented in an active, attention-guiding format. Consistent with this, lateralized posterior alpha power did not dissociate between target and distractor templates during the delay periods, suggesting similar encoding and maintenance. However, distractor preparation did lead to relatively enhanced nonlateralized posterior alpha power, which appeared to gate sensory processing at search display onset to prevent attentional capture in general. Finally, anticipating distractors also led to enhanced midfrontal theta power during the delay period, a signal that was predictive of how strongly both target and distractor were represented in the search display. Together, our results speak against a distractor-specific advance inhibitory template, thus contrary to the preactivation of specific target templates. Rather, we demonstrate a general selection suppression mechanism, which serves to prevent initial involuntary capture by anticipated distracting input.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Theeuwes, Jan, Benchi Wang, Joram van Driel, and Cristian N. L. Olivers. "Statistical learning shapes distractor suppression." Journal of Vision 18, no. 10 (September 1, 2018): 1223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/18.10.1223.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Ferrante, Oscar, Alessia Patacca, Valeria Di Caro, Elisa Santandrea, Chiara Della Libera, and Leonardo Chelazzi. "Statistical learning of distractor suppression." Journal of Vision 17, no. 10 (August 31, 2017): 674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/17.10.674.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Caputo, Giovanni, and Sergio Guerra. "Attentional selection by distractor suppression." Vision Research 38, no. 5 (March 1998): 669–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00189-2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Geng, Joy J. "Attentional Mechanisms of Distractor Suppression." Current Directions in Psychological Science 23, no. 2 (April 2014): 147–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721414525780.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Kiss, Monika, Brian A. Goolsby, Jane E. Raymond, Kimron L. Shapiro, Laetitia Silvert, Anna C. Nobre, Nickolaos Fragopanagos, John G. Taylor, and Martin Eimer. "Efficient Attentional Selection Predicts Distractor Devaluation: Event-related Potential Evidence for a Direct Link between Attention and Emotion." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19, no. 8 (August 2007): 1316–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1316.

Full text

Abstract:

Links between attention and emotion were investigated by obtaining electrophysiological measures of attentional selectivity together with behavioral measures of affective evaluation. Participants were asked to rate faces that had just been presented as targets or distractors in a visual search task. Distractors were rated as less trustworthy than targets. To study the association between the efficiency of selective attention during visual search and subsequent emotional responses, the N2pc component was quantified as a function of evaluative judgments. Evaluation of distractor faces (but not target faces) covaried with selective attention. On trials where distractors were later judged negatively, the N2pc emerged earlier, demonstrating that attention was strongly biased toward target events, and distractors were effectively inhibited. When previous distractors were judged positively, the N2pc was delayed, indicating unfocused attention to the target and less distractor suppression. Variations in attentional selectivity across trials can predict subsequent emotional responses, strongly suggesting that attention is closely associated with subsequent affective evaluation.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

de Waard, Jasper, Louisa Bogaerts, Dirk van Moorselaar, and Jan Theeuwes. "Surprisingly inflexible: Statistically learned suppression of distractors generalizes across contexts." Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 84, no. 2 (December 3, 2021): 459–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02387-x.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractThe present study investigates the flexibility of statistically learned distractor suppression between different contexts. Participants performed the additional singleton task searching for a unique shape, while ignoring a uniquely colored distractor. Crucially, we created two contexts within the experiments, and each context was assigned its own high-probability distractor location, so that the location where the distractor was most likely to appear depended on the context. Experiment 1 signified context through the color of the background. In Experiment 2, we aimed to more strongly differentiate between the contexts using an auditory or visual cue to indicate the upcoming context. In Experiment 3, context determined the appropriate response ensuring that participants engaged the context in order to be able to perform the task. Across all experiments, participants learned to suppress both high-probability locations, even if they were not aware of these spatial regularities. However, these suppression effects occurred independent of context, as the pattern of suppression reflected a de-prioritization of both high-probability locations which did not change with the context. We employed Bayesian analyses to statistically quantify the absence of context-dependent suppression effects. We conclude that statistically learned distractor suppression is robust and generalizes across contexts.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Geng, Joy J., Evelyn Eger, Christian C. Ruff, Árni Kristjánsson, Pia Rotshtein, and Jon Driver. "On-Line Attentional Selection From Competing Stimuli in Opposite Visual Fields: Effects on Human Visual Cortex and Control Processes." Journal of Neurophysiology 96, no. 5 (November 2006): 2601–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.01245.2005.

Full text

Abstract:

We used fMRI to investigate competition and on-line attentional selection between targets and distractors in opposite visual hemifields. Displays comprised a high-contrast square-wave grating, defined as target by its orientation, presented alone (unilateral) or with a similar distractor of orthogonal orientation in the opposite hemifield (bilateral displays). The target appeared unpredictably on the left or right, precluding anticipatory attention to one side. We found greater activation in target-contralateral superior occipital gyrus for unilateral than for bilateral displays, indicating suppression of the target’s visual representation by distractor presence despite the competing distractor projecting to a different occipital hemisphere. Several frontal and parietal regions showed greater activation for bilateral than unilateral trials, suggesting involvement in on-line attentional selection. This was particularly pronounced for regions in bilateral intraparietal sulcus (IPS), which also showed greater functional coupling with occipital cortex specifically on bilateral trials that required selection plus some repetition-suppression effects when target side was repeated, but again only on bilateral trials requiring selection. Our results indicate that competition between visual stimuli in opposite hemifields can influence occipital cortex, and implicate IPS in resolution of this competition by selection.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Cosman, Joshua, and Geoffrey Woodman. "Electrophysiological indices of learned distractor suppression." Journal of Vision 15, no. 12 (September 1, 2015): 319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/15.12.319.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Mazza, Veronica, Massimo Turatto, and Alfonso Caramazza. "Attention selection, distractor suppression and N2pc." Cortex 45, no. 7 (July 2009): 879–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2008.10.009.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Addleman, Douglas A., and Viola S. Stoermer. "Proactive suppression of learned distractor features." Journal of Vision 22, no. 14 (December 5, 2022): 3695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.14.3695.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Chang, Seah, and Howard E. Egeth. "Enhancement and Suppression Flexibly Guide Attention." Psychological Science 30, no. 12 (November 6, 2019): 1724–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797619878813.

Full text

Abstract:

Previous research suggests that observers can suppress salient-but-irrelevant stimuli in a top-down manner. However, one question left unresolved is whether such suppression is, in fact, solely due to distractor-feature suppression or whether it instead also reflects some degree of target-feature enhancement. The present study ( N = 60) addressed this issue. On search trials (70% of trials), participants searched for a shape target when an irrelevant color singleton was either present or absent; performance was better when a color singleton was present. On interleaved probe trials (30% of trials), participants searched for a letter target. Responses were faster for the letter on a target-colored item than on a neutral-colored item, whereas responses were slower for the letter on a distractor-colored item than on a neutral-colored item. The results demonstrate that target-feature enhancement and distractor-feature suppression contribute to attentional guidance independently; enhancement and suppression flexibly guide attention as the occasion demands.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Kawashima, Tomoya, and Eriko Matsumoto. "Cueing distractor leads to active suppression of distractor: An ERP study." Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Japanese Psychological Association 83 (September 11, 2019): 2A—055–2A—055. http://dx.doi.org/10.4992/pacjpa.83.0_2a-055.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Heuer, Anna, and Anna Schubö. "Cueing distraction: electrophysiological evidence for anticipatory active suppression of distractor location." Psychological Research 84, no. 8 (June 14, 2019): 2111–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01211-4.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Feldmann-Wüstefeld, Tobias, Marina Weinberger, and Edward Awh. "Spatially Guided Distractor Suppression during Visual Search." Journal of Neuroscience 41, no. 14 (March 2, 2021): 3180–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2418-20.2021.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Wöstmann, Malte, Viola S. Störmer, Jonas Obleser, Douglas A. Addleman, ‪Søren K. Andersen, Nicholas Gaspelin, Joy J. Geng, et al. "Ten simple rules to study distractor suppression." Progress in Neurobiology 213 (June 2022): 102269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2022.102269.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Ashinoff, Brandon K., Joy J. Geng, and Carmel Mevorach. "Delayed reactive distractor suppression in aging populations." Psychology and Aging 34, no. 3 (May 2019): 418–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pag0000336.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Goetz, Jessica N., and Mark B. Neider. "Categorical distractor suppression is robust to variance." Journal of Vision 22, no. 14 (December 5, 2022): 3306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.14.3306.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Gaspelin, Nicholas, and Steven J. Luck. "Combined Electrophysiological and Behavioral Evidence for the Suppression of Salient Distractors." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 30, no. 9 (September 2018): 1265–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01279.

Full text

Abstract:

Researchers have long debated how salient-but-irrelevant features guide visual attention. Pure stimulus-driven theories claim that salient stimuli automatically capture attention irrespective of goals, whereas pure goal-driven theories propose that an individual's attentional control settings determine whether salient stimuli capture attention. However, recent studies have suggested a hybrid model in which salient stimuli attract visual attention but can be actively suppressed by top–down attentional mechanisms. Support for this hybrid model has primarily come from ERP studies demonstrating that salient stimuli, which fail to capture attention, also elicit a distractor positivity (PD) component, a putative neural index of suppression. Other support comes from a handful of behavioral studies showing that processing at the salient locations is inhibited compared with other locations. The current study was designed to link the behavioral and neural evidence by combining ERP recordings with an experimental paradigm that provides a behavioral measure of suppression. We found that, when a salient distractor item elicited the PD component, processing at the location of this distractor was suppressed below baseline levels. Furthermore, the magnitude of behavioral suppression and the magnitude of the PD component covaried across participants. These findings provide a crucial connection between the behavioral and neural measures of suppression, which opens the door to using the PD component to assess the timing and neural substrates of the behaviorally observed suppression.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Hakim, Nicole, Tobias Feldmann-Wüstefeld, Edward Awh, and Edward K. Vogel. "Controlling the Flow of Distracting Information in Working Memory." Cerebral Cortex 31, no. 7 (March 2, 2021): 3323–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab013.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Visual working memory (WM) must maintain relevant information, despite the constant influx of both relevant and irrelevant information. Attentional control mechanisms help determine which of this new information gets access to our capacity-limited WM system. Previous work has treated attentional control as a monolithic process—either distractors capture attention or they are suppressed. Here, we provide evidence that attentional capture may instead be broken down into at least two distinct subcomponent processes: (1) Spatial capture, which refers to when spatial attention shifts towards the location of irrelevant stimuli and (2) item-based capture, which refers to when item-based WM representations of irrelevant stimuli are formed. To dissociate these two subcomponent processes of attentional capture, we utilized a series of electroencephalography components that track WM maintenance (contralateral delay activity), suppression (distractor positivity), item individuation (N2pc), and spatial attention (lateralized alpha power). We show that new, relevant information (i.e., a task-relevant distractor) triggers both spatial and item-based capture. Irrelevant distractors, however, only trigger spatial capture from which ongoing WM representations can recover more easily. This fractionation of attentional capture into distinct subcomponent processes provides a refined framework for understanding how distracting stimuli affect attention and WM.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Banaie Boroujeni, Kianoush, Mariann Oemisch, Seyed Alireza Hassani, and Thilo Womelsdorf. "Fast spiking interneuron activity in primate striatum tracks learning of attention cues." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, no. 30 (July 13, 2020): 18049–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001348117.

Full text

Abstract:

Cognitive flexibility depends on a fast neural learning mechanism for enhancing momentary relevant over irrelevant information. A possible neural mechanism realizing this enhancement uses fast spiking interneurons (FSIs) in the striatum to train striatal projection neurons to gate relevant and suppress distracting cortical inputs. We found support for such a mechanism in nonhuman primates during the flexible adjustment of visual attention in a reversal learning task. FSI activity was modulated by visual attention cues during feature-based learning. One FSI subpopulation showed stronger activation during learning, while another FSI subpopulation showed response suppression after learning, which could indicate a disinhibitory effect on the local circuit. Additionally, FSIs that showed response suppression to learned attention cues were activated by salient distractor events, suggesting they contribute to suppressing bottom-up distraction. These findings suggest that striatal fast spiking interneurons play an important role when cues are learned that redirect attention away from previously relevant to newly relevant visual information. This cue-specific activity was independent of motor-related activity and thus tracked specifically the learning of reward predictive visual features.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Chechlacz, Magdalena, Peter C. Hansen, Joy J. Geng, and Dario Cazzoli. "Polarity-dependent Effects of Biparietal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on the Interplay between Target Location and Distractor Saliency in Visual Attention." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 30, no. 6 (June 2018): 851–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01242.

Full text

Abstract:

Visual attention allows the allocation of limited neural processing resources to stimuli based on their behavioral priorities. The selection of task-relevant visual targets entails the processing of multiple competing stimuli and the suppression of distractors that may be either perceptually salient or perceptually similar to targets. The posterior parietal cortex controls the interaction between top–down (task-driven) and bottom–up (stimulus-driven) processes competing for attentional selection, as well as spatial distribution of attention. Here, we examined whether biparietal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) would modulate the interaction between top–down and bottom–up processes in visual attention. Visual attention function was assessed with a visual discrimination task, in which a lateralized target was presented alone or together with a contralateral, similar or salient, distractor. The accuracy and RTs were measured before and during three stimulation sessions (sham, right anodal/left cathodal, left anodal/right cathodal). The analyses demonstrated (i) polarity-dependent effects of tDCS on the accuracy of target discrimination, but only when the target was presented with a similar distractor; (ii) the tDCS-triggered effects on the accuracy of discriminating targets, accompanied by a similar distractor, varied according to the target location; and (iii) overall detrimental effects of tDCS on RTs were observed, regardless of target location, distractor type, and polarity of the stimulation. We conclude that the observed polarity, distractor type, and target location-dependent effects of biparietal tDCS on the accuracy of target detection resulted from both a modulation of the interaction between top–down and bottom–up attentional processes and the interhemispheric competition mechanisms guiding attentional selection and spatial deployment of attention.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Daly, Heather R., and Mark A. Pitt. "Distractor probability influences suppression in auditory selective attention." Cognition 216 (November 2021): 104849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104849.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Sauter, Marian, Heinrich Liesefeld, and Hermann Müller. "Mechanisms behind learned distractor suppression in visual search." Journal of Vision 18, no. 10 (September 1, 2018): 631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/18.10.631.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Sun, Hsin-Mei, Preeti Verghese, and Joo-Hyun Song. "Time course of distractor suppression revealed by chronometry." Journal of Vision 16, no. 12 (September 1, 2016): 591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/16.12.591.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Noonan, MaryAnn P., Nika Adamian, Alexandra Pike, Frida Printzlau, Ben M. Crittenden, and Mark G. Stokes. "Distinct Mechanisms for Distractor Suppression and Target Facilitation." Journal of Neuroscience 36, no. 6 (February 10, 2016): 1797–807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2133-15.2016.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Geng, Joy J., and Shea E. Duarte. "Unresolved issues in distractor suppression: Proactive and reactive mechanisms, implicit learning, and naturalistic distraction." Visual Cognition 29, no. 9 (September 28, 2021): 608–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2021.1928806.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Guerreiro, Maria J. S., Joaquin A. Anguera, Jyoti Mishra, Pascal W. M. Van Gerven, and Adam Gazzaley. "Age-equivalent Top–Down Modulation during Cross-modal Selective Attention." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 26, no. 12 (December 2014): 2827–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00685.

Full text

Abstract:

Selective attention involves top–down modulation of sensory cortical areas, such that responses to relevant information are enhanced whereas responses to irrelevant information are suppressed. Suppression of irrelevant information, unlike enhancement of relevant information, has been shown to be deficient in aging. Although these attentional mechanisms have been well characterized within the visual modality, little is known about these mechanisms when attention is selectively allocated across sensory modalities. The present EEG study addressed this issue by testing younger and older participants in three different tasks: Participants attended to the visual modality and ignored the auditory modality, attended to the auditory modality and ignored the visual modality, or passively perceived information presented through either modality. We found overall modulation of visual and auditory processing during cross-modal selective attention in both age groups. Top–down modulation of visual processing was observed as a trend toward enhancement of visual information in the setting of auditory distraction, but no significant suppression of visual distraction when auditory information was relevant. Top–down modulation of auditory processing, on the other hand, was observed as suppression of auditory distraction when visual stimuli were relevant, but no significant enhancement of auditory information in the setting of visual distraction. In addition, greater visual enhancement was associated with better recognition of relevant visual information, and greater auditory distractor suppression was associated with a better ability to ignore auditory distraction. There were no age differences in these effects, suggesting that when relevant and irrelevant information are presented through different sensory modalities, selective attention remains intact in older age.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Wan, X. I., and A. Lleras. "Features and suppression: What perceptual features afford suppression in the distractor previewing effect?" Journal of Vision 6, no. 6 (March 19, 2010): 531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/6.6.531.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Journal articles on the topic 'Distractor suppression'

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles