Reduced contextual uncertainty facilitates learning what to attend to and what to ignore.

Chris Jungerius, Sophie Perizonius, Heleen A Slagter
Author Information
  1. Chris Jungerius: Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. d.c.jungerius@uva.nl. ORCID
  2. Sophie Perizonius: Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  3. Heleen A Slagter: Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

Variability in the search environment has been shown to affect the capture of attention by salient distractors, as attentional capture is reduced when context variability is low. However, it remains unclear whether this reduction in capture is caused by contextual learning or other mechanisms, grounded in generic context-structure learning. We set out to test this by training participants (n = 200) over two sessions in a visual search task, conducted online, where they gained experience with a small subset of search displays, which significantly reduced capture of attention by colour singletons. In a third session, we then tested participants on a mix of familiar and novel search displays and examined whether this reduction in capture was specific to familiar displays, indicative of contextual cueing effects, or would generalise to novel displays. We found no capture by the singleton in either the familiar or novel condition. Instead, our findings suggested that reduced statistical volatility reduced capture by allowing the development of generic predictions about task-relevant locations and features of the display. These findings add to the current debate about the determinants of capture by salient distractors by showing that capture is also affected by generic task regularities and by the volatility of the learning environment.

Keywords

References

  1. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2023 Jun;152(6):1705-1722 [PMID: 37023328]
  2. Trends Cogn Sci. 2022 Oct;26(10):860-872 [PMID: 35840476]
  3. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2018 Jul;80(5):1096-1109 [PMID: 29600489]
  4. Cortex. 2018 May;102:107-120 [PMID: 28734549]
  5. J Cogn Neurosci. 2023 Jun 1;35(6):1032-1044 [PMID: 36951590]
  6. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Sep;22(9):764-779 [PMID: 30122170]
  7. Percept Psychophys. 2005 Oct;67(7):1252-68 [PMID: 16502846]
  8. Psychol Sci. 2015 Nov;26(11):1740-50 [PMID: 26420441]
  9. Vis cogn. 2021 Sep 28;29(9):631-636 [PMID: 34720654]
  10. Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jul;5(7):631-2 [PMID: 12068304]
  11. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018 Jan;44(1):13-17 [PMID: 29309194]
  12. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2020 Oct;46(10):1051-1057 [PMID: 32757594]
  13. Sci Rep. 2020 Jan 22;10(1):904 [PMID: 31969579]
  14. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018 Apr;44(4):626-644 [PMID: 29035072]
  15. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Aug;33(4):764-87 [PMID: 17683227]
  16. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2021 Jan;47(1):116-120 [PMID: 33180547]
  17. J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3): [PMID: 24403724]
  18. Front Hum Neurosci. 2011 May 02;5:39 [PMID: 21629826]
  19. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010 Feb;11(2):127-38 [PMID: 20068583]
  20. J Cogn. 2019 Jul 19;2(1):16 [PMID: 31517234]
  21. J Cogn Neurosci. 2023 Sep 1;35(9):1478-1492 [PMID: 37348132]
  22. Prog Neurobiol. 2022 Jun;213:102269 [PMID: 35427732]
  23. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2021 Oct;47(10):1313-1328 [PMID: 34766817]
  24. Behav Res Methods. 2015 Mar;47(1):1-12 [PMID: 24683129]
  25. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Oct;71(7):1514-24 [PMID: 19801612]
  26. Cogn Psychol. 1998 Jun;36(1):28-71 [PMID: 9679076]
  27. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1988 Aug;14(3):453-71 [PMID: 2971773]
  28. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019 Nov;81(8):2571-2589 [PMID: 31410759]
  29. Front Hum Neurosci. 2010 Dec 02;4:215 [PMID: 21160551]
  30. J Neurosci. 2019 Aug 28;39(35):6953-6967 [PMID: 31270162]
  31. Nat Neurosci. 2007 Sep;10(9):1214-21 [PMID: 17676057]
  32. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Jul;13(7):293-301 [PMID: 19559644]
  33. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 May;4(5):170-178 [PMID: 10782102]
  34. J Cogn Neurosci. 2023 Nov 1;35(11):1693-1715 [PMID: 37677060]
  35. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Jun;24(3):847-58 [PMID: 9627420]
  36. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2023 Oct;85(7):2170-2177 [PMID: 37258893]
  37. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2024 May;50(5):699-711 [PMID: 37917510]
  38. Vis cogn. 2021;29(1):1-21 [PMID: 33574729]
  39. Front Psychol. 2014 Nov 06;5:1195 [PMID: 25414676]

MeSH Term

Humans
Attention
Uncertainty
Female
Male
Young Adult
Adult
Color Perception
Cues
Pattern Recognition, Visual
Learning
Adolescent
Orientation
Reaction Time

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0capturesearchlearningreduceddisplayscontextualgenericfamiliarnovelenvironmentattentionsalientdistractorswhetherreductionparticipantstaskcueingfindingsvolatilityVariabilityshownaffectattentionalcontextvariabilitylowHoweverremainsunclearcausedmechanismsgroundedcontext-structuresettesttrainingn=200twosessionsvisualconductedonlinegainedexperiencesmallsubsetsignificantlycoloursingletonsthirdsessiontestedmixexaminedspecificindicativeeffectsgeneralisefoundsingletoneitherconditionInsteadsuggestedstatisticalallowingdevelopmentpredictionstask-relevantlocationsfeaturesdisplayaddcurrentdebatedeterminantsshowingalsoaffectedregularitiesReduceduncertaintyfacilitatesattendignoreAttentionalContextualDistractorsuppressionStatisticalVisual

Similar Articles

Cited By