It's under control

Top-down search strategies can override attentional capture

Andrew B. Leber, Howard E Egeth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Bacon and Egeth (1994) proposed that observed instances of attentional capture by feature singletons (e.g., color) were the result of a salience-based strategy adopted by subjects (singleton detection mode) and, thus, were not automatic. They showed that subjects could override capture by adopting strategies based on searching for specific target features (feature search mode). However, Theeuwes (2004) has recently argued that Bacon and Egeth's results arose from experimental confounds. He elaborated a model in which attentional capture must be expected when salient distractors fall within a spatial window of attention. According to Theeuwes's (2004) model, there exist two essential criteria for examining stimulus-driven capture. First, search latencies cannot increase with display size, since the search must be parallel; second, the salience of the irrelevant distractor must not be compromised by characteristics of the search display. Contrary to the predictions of Theeuwes's (2004) model, we provide evidence that involuntary capture can be overridden when both of these criteria are met. Our results are consistent with Bacon and Egeth's proposal.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)132-138
Number of pages7
JournalPsychonomic Bulletin and Review
Volume13
Issue number1
StatePublished - Feb 2006

Fingerprint

Color
Top-down
Distractor

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Psychology (miscellaneous)

Cite this

It's under control : Top-down search strategies can override attentional capture. / Leber, Andrew B.; Egeth, Howard E.

In: Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, 02.2006, p. 132-138.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{be95327fff3147c8b4670c33b0060db8,
title = "It's under control: Top-down search strategies can override attentional capture",
abstract = "Bacon and Egeth (1994) proposed that observed instances of attentional capture by feature singletons (e.g., color) were the result of a salience-based strategy adopted by subjects (singleton detection mode) and, thus, were not automatic. They showed that subjects could override capture by adopting strategies based on searching for specific target features (feature search mode). However, Theeuwes (2004) has recently argued that Bacon and Egeth's results arose from experimental confounds. He elaborated a model in which attentional capture must be expected when salient distractors fall within a spatial window of attention. According to Theeuwes's (2004) model, there exist two essential criteria for examining stimulus-driven capture. First, search latencies cannot increase with display size, since the search must be parallel; second, the salience of the irrelevant distractor must not be compromised by characteristics of the search display. Contrary to the predictions of Theeuwes's (2004) model, we provide evidence that involuntary capture can be overridden when both of these criteria are met. Our results are consistent with Bacon and Egeth's proposal.",
author = "Leber, {Andrew B.} and Egeth, {Howard E}",
year = "2006",
month = "2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "132--138",
journal = "Psychonomic Bulletin and Review",
issn = "1069-9384",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - It's under control

T2 - Top-down search strategies can override attentional capture

AU - Leber, Andrew B.

AU - Egeth, Howard E

PY - 2006/2

Y1 - 2006/2

N2 - Bacon and Egeth (1994) proposed that observed instances of attentional capture by feature singletons (e.g., color) were the result of a salience-based strategy adopted by subjects (singleton detection mode) and, thus, were not automatic. They showed that subjects could override capture by adopting strategies based on searching for specific target features (feature search mode). However, Theeuwes (2004) has recently argued that Bacon and Egeth's results arose from experimental confounds. He elaborated a model in which attentional capture must be expected when salient distractors fall within a spatial window of attention. According to Theeuwes's (2004) model, there exist two essential criteria for examining stimulus-driven capture. First, search latencies cannot increase with display size, since the search must be parallel; second, the salience of the irrelevant distractor must not be compromised by characteristics of the search display. Contrary to the predictions of Theeuwes's (2004) model, we provide evidence that involuntary capture can be overridden when both of these criteria are met. Our results are consistent with Bacon and Egeth's proposal.

AB - Bacon and Egeth (1994) proposed that observed instances of attentional capture by feature singletons (e.g., color) were the result of a salience-based strategy adopted by subjects (singleton detection mode) and, thus, were not automatic. They showed that subjects could override capture by adopting strategies based on searching for specific target features (feature search mode). However, Theeuwes (2004) has recently argued that Bacon and Egeth's results arose from experimental confounds. He elaborated a model in which attentional capture must be expected when salient distractors fall within a spatial window of attention. According to Theeuwes's (2004) model, there exist two essential criteria for examining stimulus-driven capture. First, search latencies cannot increase with display size, since the search must be parallel; second, the salience of the irrelevant distractor must not be compromised by characteristics of the search display. Contrary to the predictions of Theeuwes's (2004) model, we provide evidence that involuntary capture can be overridden when both of these criteria are met. Our results are consistent with Bacon and Egeth's proposal.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748790122&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748790122&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 132

EP - 138

JO - Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

JF - Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

SN - 1069-9384

IS - 1

ER -