A Critique of the Attentional Window Account of Capture Failures.

Nicholas Gaspelin, Howard E Egeth, Steven J Luck
Author Information
  1. Nicholas Gaspelin: Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Binghamton, US. ORCID
  2. Howard E Egeth: Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, US. ORCID
  3. Steven J Luck: Center for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis, US. ORCID

Abstract

There has been a lengthy debate about whether salient stimuli have the power to automatically capture attention, even when entirely task irrelevant. Theeuwes (2022) has suggested that an attentional window account could explain why capture is observed in some studies, but not others. According to this account, when search is difficult, participants narrow their attentional window, and this prevents the salient distractor from generating a saliency signal. In turn, this causes the salient distractor to fail to capture attention. In the present commentary, we describe two major problems with this account. First, the attentional window account proposes that attention must be focused so narrowly that featural information from the salient distractor will be filtered prior to saliency computations. However, many previous studies observing no capture provided evidence that featural processing was sufficiently detailed to guide attention toward the target shape. This indicates that the attentional window was sufficiently broad to allow featural processing. Second, the attentional window account proposes that capture should occur more readily in easy search tasks than difficult search tasks. We review previous studies that violate this basic prediction of the attentional window account. A more parsimonious account of the data is that control over feature processing can be exerted proactively to prevent capture, at least under certain conditions.

Keywords

References

  1. Percept Psychophys. 1994 May;55(5):485-96 [PMID: 8008550]
  2. Psychol Res. 2022 Sep;86(6):1958-1971 [PMID: 34561719]
  3. J Cogn Neurosci. 2022 Mar 31;34(5):787-805 [PMID: 35104346]
  4. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2020 Oct;46(10):1051-1057 [PMID: 32757594]
  5. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013 Jul;25(7):1100-10 [PMID: 23448524]
  6. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2021 Oct;47(10):1313-1328 [PMID: 34766817]
  7. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2017 Jan;79(1):45-62 [PMID: 27804032]
  8. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022 Aug;84(6):1913-1924 [PMID: 35859034]
  9. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Jun;24(3):847-58 [PMID: 9627420]
  10. Vis cogn. 2019;27(3-4):227-246 [PMID: 31745389]
  11. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1990 Apr;73(3):195-209 [PMID: 2353586]
  12. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992 Nov;18(4):1030-44 [PMID: 1431742]
  13. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018 Apr;44(4):626-644 [PMID: 29035072]
  14. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2023 Apr;85(3):613-633 [PMID: 35701658]
  15. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2016 Aug;42(8):1104-20 [PMID: 26854530]
  16. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1995;18:193-222 [PMID: 7605061]
  17. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Jan;22(1):79-92 [PMID: 29191511]
  18. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Jun;34(3):509-30 [PMID: 18505320]
  19. J Cogn. 2023 Jul 06;6(1):35 [PMID: 37426061]
  20. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2020 Aug;82(6):3048-3064 [PMID: 32483661]
  21. J Cogn Neurosci. 2018 Sep;30(9):1265-1280 [PMID: 29762104]
  22. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004 Jun;5(6):495-501 [PMID: 15152199]
  23. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Feb;13(1):132-8 [PMID: 16724780]
  24. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2019 Mar;45(3):419-433 [PMID: 30802131]
  25. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2023 Jun;49(6):852-861 [PMID: 37276124]
  26. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Oct;19(5):871-8 [PMID: 22696250]
  27. Percept Psychophys. 1986 Oct;40(4):225-40 [PMID: 3786090]
  28. Biol Psychol. 2016 Dec;121(Pt A):74-83 [PMID: 27756581]
  29. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010 Oct;135(2):103-5; discussion 133-9 [PMID: 20510849]
  30. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1983 Jun;9(3):371-9 [PMID: 6223977]
  31. Psychol Sci. 2015 Nov;26(11):1740-50 [PMID: 26420441]
  32. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Feb;36(1):1-16 [PMID: 20121291]
  33. J Cogn. 2018 Oct 03;1(1):43 [PMID: 31517216]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0attentionalaccountcapturewindowattentionsalientstudiessearchdistractorfeaturalprocessingdifficultsaliencyproposesprevioussufficientlytaskslengthydebatewhetherstimulipowerautomaticallyevenentirelytaskirrelevantTheeuwes2022suggestedexplainobservedothersAccordingparticipantsnarrowpreventsgeneratingsignalturncausesfailpresentcommentarydescribetwomajorproblemsFirstmustfocusednarrowlyinformationwillfilteredpriorcomputationsHowevermanyobservingprovidedevidencedetailedguidetowardtargetshapeindicatesbroadallowSecondoccurreadilyeasyreviewviolatebasicpredictionparsimoniousdatacontrolfeaturecanexertedproactivelypreventleastcertainconditionsCritiqueAttentionalWindowAccountCaptureFailuressuppression

Similar Articles

Cited By