Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jun;38(3):580-4.
doi: 10.1037/a0027885. Epub 2012 Apr 2.

Templates for rejection: configuring attention to ignore task-irrelevant features

Affiliations

Templates for rejection: configuring attention to ignore task-irrelevant features

Jason T Arita et al. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012 Jun.

Abstract

Theories of attention are compatible with the idea that we can bias attention to avoid selecting objects that have known nontarget features. Although this may underlie several existing phenomena, the explicit guidance of attention away from known nontargets has yet to be demonstrated. Here we show that observers can use feature cues (i.e., color) to bias attention away from nontarget items during visual search. These negative cues were used to quickly instantiate a template for rejection that reliably facilitated search across the cue-to-search stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), although negative cues were not as potent as cues that guide attention toward target features. Furthermore, by varying the search set size we show a template for rejection is increasingly effective in facilitating search as scene complexity increases. Our findings demonstrate that knowing what not to look for can be used to configure attention to avoid certain features, complimenting what is known about setting attention to select certain target features.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example trial sequence showing a negative-cue trial with a set size of 12 items.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The findings from Experiments 1A and 1B showing the reaction time (RT) results from the three cue-type conditions. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals (Loftus & Loftus, 1988) in this a subsequent figures.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The findings from Experiment 2. The results from Experiment 2 showing mean RTs (left panel) and the RT benefits (positive and negative cue RTs minus neutral cue RTs, right panel) at each set size.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The findings from Experiment 3. The RT benefits as a function of cue type and SOA from Experiment 3A (left) and 3B (right).

References

    1. Bundesen C. A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review. 1990;97:523–547. - PubMed
    1. Bundesen C, Habekost T, Kyllingsbaek S. A neural theory of visual attention: Bridging cognition and neurophysiology. Psychological Review. 2005;112:291–328. - PubMed
    1. Desimone R, Duncan J. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 1995;18:193–222. - PubMed
    1. James W. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt; 1890.
    1. Jiang Y, Chun M, Marks LE. Visual marking: Dissociating effects of new and old set size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition. 2002;28:293–302. - PubMed