Abstract
In the present study, we explored the mechanisms involved in the contingent capture phenomenon, using a variant of the classic precuing paradigm of Folk, Remington, and Johnston (1992). Rather than keeping the target fixed over a whole block of trials (as has traditionally been done with contingent capture experiments), we encouraged participants to adopt a top-down set before each trial. If top-down attentional set determines which property captures attention, as is claimed by the contingent capture hypothesis, one would expect that only properties that match the top-down set would capture attention. We showed that even though participants knew what the target would be on the upcoming trial, both relevant and irrelevant properties captured attention (Experiment 1). An intertrial analysis (Experiments 1 and 2) showed that previous contingent capture findings may, to a large extent, be explained by intertrial priming. In addition, when participants were further forced into adopting the required top-down set (Experiments 3 and 4), irrelevant cues were suppressed, suggesting that top-down control might operate through disengagement of attention from the location of a property that does not match top-down goals. The present findings suggest that top-down control and intertrial priming make their own distinct contributions to the contingent capture phenomenon.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Becker, S. I. (2007). Irrelevant singletons in pop-out search: Attentional capture or filtering costs? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 764–787.
Becker, S. I., Ansorge, U., & Horstmann, G. (2009). Can intertrial priming account for the similarity effect in visual search? Vision Research, 49, 1738–1756.
Burnham, B. R. (2007). Displaywide visual features associated with a search display’s appearance can mediate attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 392–422.
Danziger, S., & Kingstone, A. (1999). Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1024–1037.
Eimer, M., & Kiss, M. (2008). Involuntary attentional capture is determined by task set: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1423–1433.
Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. W. (1998). Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: Evidence for two forms of attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 847–858.
Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. W. (2008). Bottom-up priming of top-down attentional control settings. Visual Cognition, 16, 215–231.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 1030–1044.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Wright, J. H. (1994). The structure of attentional control: Contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 317–329.
Geyer, T., Müller, H. J., & Krummenacher, J. (2006). Cross-trial priming in visual search for singleton conjunction targets: Role of repeated target and distractor features. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 736–749.
Geyer, T., Müller, H. J., & Krummenacher, J. (2008). Expectancies modulate attentional capture by salient color singletons. Vision Research, 48, 1315–1326.
Hickey, C., McDonald, J. J., & Theeuwes, J. (2006). Electrophysiological evidence of the capture of visual attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 604–613.
Hillstrom, A. P. (2000). Repetition effects in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 800–817.
Jonides, J., & Yantis, S. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 346–354.
Kim, M.-S., & Cave, K. R. (1999). Top-down and bottom-up attentional control: On the nature of interference from a salient distractor. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1009–1023.
Kiss, M., Van Velzen, J., & Eimer, M. (2008). The N2pc component and its links to attention shifts and spatially selective visual processing. Psychophysiology, 45, 240–249.
Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138–147.
Kristjánsson, Á., Vuilleumier, P., Schwartz, S., Macaluso, E., & Driver, J. (2007). Neural basis for priming of pop-out during visual search revealed with fMRI. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 1612–1624.
Kristjánsson, Á., Wang, D., & Nakayama, K. (2002). The role of priming in conjunctive visual search. Cognition, 85, 37–52.
Lamy, D., & Egeth, H. E. (2003). Attentional capture in singleton-detection and feature-search modes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 1003–1020.
Lamy, D., Leber, A., & Egeth, H. E. (2004). Effects of task relevance and stimulus-driven salience in feature-search mode. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 1019–1031.
Leblanc, E., Prime, D. J., & Jolicoeur, P. (2008). Tracking the location of visuospatial attention in a contingent capture paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 657–671.
Lien, M. C., Johnston, J. V., & Ruthruff, E. (in press). Attentional capture with rapidly changing attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.
Lien, M. C., Ruthruff, E., Goodin, Z., & Remington, R. W. (2008). Contingent attentional capture by top-down control settings: Converging evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 34, 509–530.
Maljkovic, V., & Nakayama, K. (1994). Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory & Cognition, 22, 657–672.
Meeter, M., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2006). Intertrial priming stemming from ambiguity: A new account of priming in visual search. Visual Cognition, 13, 202–222.
Müller, H. J., Geyer, T., Zehetleitner, M., & Krummenacher, J. (2009). Attentional capture by salient color singleton distractors is modulated by top-down dimensional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 35, 1–16.
Müller, H. J., Heller, D., & Ziegler, J. (1995). Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1–17.
Olivers, C. N. L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2003). Attentional guidance by salient feature singletons depends on intertrial contingencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 650–657.
Olivers, C. N. L., & Meeter, M. (2006). On the dissociation between compound and present/absent tasks in visual search: Intertrial priming is ambiguity-driven. Visual Cognition, 13, 202–222.
Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.
Pinto, Y., Olivers, C. N. L., & Theeuwes, J. (2005). Target uncertainty does not lead to more distraction by singletons: Intertrial priming does. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1354–1361.
Rauschenberger, R. (2003). Attentional capture by auto-and allo-cues. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 814–842.
Schreij, D., Owens, C., & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Abrupt onsets capture attention independent of top-down control settings. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 208–218.
Theeuwes, J. (1990). Perceptual selectivity is task-dependent: Evidence from selective search. Acta Psychologica, 74, 81–99.
Theeuwes, J. (1991). Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 184–193.
Theeuwes, J. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 599–606.
Theeuwes, J. (1994). Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: Selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 799–806.
Theeuwes, J. (1995). Temporal and spatial characteristics of preattentive and attentive processing. Visual Cognition, 2, 221–233.
Theeuwes, J. (2004). Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 65–70.
Theeuwes, J., Atchley, P., & Kramer, A. F. (2000). On the time course of top-down and bottom-up control of visual attention. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 105–124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Theeuwes, J., & Godijn, R. (2002). Irrelevant singletons capture attention: Evidence from inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 764–770.
Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., & Irwin, D. E. (1998). Our eyes do not always go where we want them to go: Capture of eyes by new objects. Psychological Science, 9, 379–385.
Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., Irwin, D. E., & Zelinsky, G. J. (1999). Influence of attentional capture on oculomotor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1595–1608.
Theeuwes, J., Reimann, B., & Mortier, K. (2006). Visual search for featural singletons: No top-down modulation, only bottom-up priming. Visual Cognition, 14, 466–489.
Theeuwes, J., & Van der Burg, E. (2007). The role of spatial and nonspatial information in visual selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 1335–1351.
Theeuwes, J., & Van der Burg, E. (2008). The role of cueing in attentional capture. Visual Cognition, 16, 232–247.
Theeuwes, J., Van der Burg, E., & Belopolsky, A. (2008). Detecting the presence of a singleton involves focal attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 555–560.
Wolfe, J. M., Butcher, S. J., Lee, C., & Hyle, M. (2003). Changing your mind: On the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 483–502.
Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 601–621.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was funded by Grant HSFP-RGP39/2005 from the Human Frontier Science Program to J.T.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Belopolsky, A.V., Schreij, D. & Theeuwes, J. What is top-down about contingent capture?. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 72, 326–341 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.2.326
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.2.326