Spatiotemporal competition and task-relevance shape the spatial distribution of emotional interference during rapid visual processing: Evidence from gaze-contingent eye-tracking

Abstract

People's ability to perceive rapidly presented targets can be disrupted both by voluntary encoding of a preceding target and by spontaneous attention to salient distractors. Distinctions between these sources of interference can be found when people search for a target in multiple rapid streams instead of a single stream: voluntary encoding of a preceding target often elicits subsequent perceptual lapses across the visual field, whereas spontaneous attention to emotionally salient distractors appears to elicit a spatially localized lapse, giving rise to a theoretical account suggesting that emotional distractors and subsequent targets compete spatiotemporally during rapid serial visual processing. We used gaze-contingent eye-tracking to probe the roles of spatiotemporal competition and memory encoding on the spatial distribution of interference caused by emotional distractors, while also ruling out the role of eye-gaze in driving differences in spatial distribution. Spontaneous target perception impairments caused by emotional distractors were localized to the distractor location regardless of where participants fixated. But when emotional distractors were task-relevant, perceptual lapses occurred across both streams while remaining strongest at the distractor location. These results suggest that spatiotemporal competition and memory encoding reflect a dual-route impact of emotional stimuli on target perception during rapid visual processing.

Keywords: Attentional blink; Attentional capture; Visual awareness.

Figure 1. Alternative account predictions

Predicted results according to an account that the spatial specific impairment in emotion-induced blindness results from participants fixating at only one stream at a time. The streams in which targets appear are represented with a T. See text for details.

Figure 2. Schematic of a partial trial in Experiment 1

Participants reported the direction of the one rotated picture that appeared in either of two simultaneously presented RSVP streams (presentation rate 100ms/frame). The distractor item - a colored negative image or colored scene image - appeared either one frame or two frames before the target, which was also colored. All other images in the stream were grayscale. The distractor appeared either in the same stream or opposite stream from the target.

Figure 3. Experiment 1 target accuracy

In Experiment 1, impairment from emotional distractors was localized both when the distractor was fixated and non-fixated. EIB was observed when targets appeared in the same stream as distractors – regardless of whether the participants were fixating on the distractor stream or when fixating at the opposite stream. When the target and distractor appeared in opposite streams, no EIB was observed. Error bars represent standard error, and Ts represent the stream in which the targets appeared.

Figure 4. Experiment 2 target accuracy

In Experiment 2, EIB was observed when targets appeared in the same stream as distractors – both when participants fixated at the distractor stream and when fixating at the opposite stream. When the target and distractor appeared in opposite streams, EIB was also observed. However, the emotion-induced impairment was greater when distractors and targets appeared in the same stream, compared to when they appeared in opposite streams. Error bars represent standard error, and Ts represent the streams in which the targets appeared.

Figure 5. Experiment 2 distractor memory performance

Participants remembered distractors better when they were negative compared to when they were featural distractors. They also remembered distractors better when the distractors were fixated, compared to non-fixated. Error bars represent standard error, and Ts represent the streams in which the targets appeared.