The N2pc ERP component has been widely used as a measure of lateralized visual attention. It is characterized by a negativity contralateral to the attended location or target, and it is thought to reflect contralaterally enhanced processing of attended information in intermediate to high levels of the ventral visual pathway. Given that the receptive fields in these areas often extend a few degrees into the ipsilateral hemifield, we might expect that near-midline stimuli would be processed by both the contralateral and ipsilateral hemispheres, resulting in a diminished N2pc. However, little is known about the effect of eccentricity on the N2pc component. To address this gap in knowledge, we recorded the EEG while participants performed a discrimination task with stimuli presented at one of five eccentricities (0°, 0.05°, 1°, 2°, 4° and 8° between the inner edge of the stimulus and the midline). We found that the N2pc amplitude remained relatively constant across eccentricities, including when the inner edge was at the midline, except that N2pc amplitude was reduced by more than 50% at the greatest eccentricity (8°). We also examined the contralateral positivity that often follows the N2pc. This positivity became progressively larger, and the transition from negative to positive occurred progressively later, as the eccentricity increased. These findings suggest that future experiments looking at the N2pc can use near-midline stimuli without compromising the N2pc amplitude, but should avoid large eccentricities. Implications about the neural generators of the N2pc are also discussed.

When the distance between a visual target and nearby flankers falls below a critical distance, target discrimination declines precipitously. This is called "crowding." Many researchers have proposed that selective attention plays a role in crowding. However, although some research has examined the effects of directing attention toward versus away from the targets, no previous research has assessed how attentional allocation varies as a function of target-flanker distance in crowding. Here, we used ERPs to assess the operation of attention during crowding, focusing on the attention-related N2pc component. We used a typical crowding task in which participants were asked to report the category (vowel/consonant) of a lateralized target letter flanked by distractor letters at different distances. We tested the hypothesis that attention fails when the target-flanker distance becomes too small for attention to operate effectively. Consistent with this hypothesis, we found that N2pc amplitude was maximal at intermediate target-flanker distances and decreased substantially when crowding became severe. In addition, we examined the sustained posterior contralateral negativity (SPCN), which reflects the amount of information being maintained in working memory. Unlike the N2pc component, the SPCN increased in amplitude at small target-flanker distances, suggesting that observers stored information about the target and flankers in working memory when attention failed to select the target. Together, the N2pc and SPCN results suggest that attention and working memory play distinctive roles in crowding: Attention operates to minimize interference from the flankers at intermediate target-flanker distances, whereas working memory may be recruited when attention fails to select the target at small target-flanker distances.

Physically salient stimuli, such as uniquely colored objects, seem to have an inherent power to capture our attention, but formal research on this topic has produced conflicting results and theories. Here, we review evidence that the attentional capture debate can be resolved by positing a new suppressive process. This suppressive process can occur before attentional shifting to prevent salient items from attracting attention. In the current article, we review converging evidence that salient items are suppressed to avoid attentional capture comes from studies of psychophysics, eye movements, single-unit recordings, and event-related potentials (ERPs). Crucially, the ability to inhibit salient distractors seems to be learned as participants gain experience with the simple features of the to-be-ignored stimuli.

According to the load theory of attention, an increased perceptual load reduces distractor processing whereas an increased working memory load facilitates distractor processing. Here we raise the possibility that the critical distinction may instead be between an emphasis on resolution and an emphasis on capacity. That is, perceptual load manipulations typically emphasize resolution (fine-grained discriminations), whereas working memory load manipulations typically emphasize capacity (simultaneous processing of multiple relevant stimuli). To test the plausibility of this hypothesis, we used a visual working memory task that emphasized either the number of items to be stored (capacity load, retaining 2 vs. 4 colors) or the precision of the representations (resolution load, detecting small vs. large color changes). We found that an increased capacity load led to increased flanker interference (a measure of distractor processing), whereas an increased resolution load led to reduced flanker interference. These opposite effects of capacity load and resolution load on distractor processing mirror the previously described opposite effects of perceptual load and working memory load.

For more than 60 years, the gold standard for assessing aversive conditioning in humans has been the skin conductance response (SCR), which arises from the activation of the peripheral nervous system. Although the SCR has been proven useful, it has some properties that impact the kinds of questions it can be used to answer. In particular, the SCR is slow, reaching a peak 4-5 s after stimulus onset, and it decreases in amplitude after a few trials (habituation). The present study asked whether the late positive potential (LPP) of the ERP waveform could be a useful complementary method for assessing aversive conditioning in humans. The SCR and LPP were measured in an aversive conditioning paradigm consisting of three blocks in which one color was paired with a loud noise (CS+) and other colors were not paired with the noise (CS-). Participants also reported the perceived likelihood of being exposed to the noise for each color. Both SCR and LPP were significantly larger on CS+ trials than on CS- trials. However, SCR decreased steeply after the first conditioning block, whereas LPP and self-reports were stable over blocks. These results indicate that the LPP can be used to assess aversive conditioning and has several useful properties: (a) it is a direct response of the central nervous system, (b) it is fast, with an onset latency of 300 ms, (c) it does not habituate over time.

Researchers have long debated how salient-but-irrelevant features guide visual attention. Pure stimulus-driven theories claim that salient stimuli automatically capture attention irrespective of goals, whereas pure goal-driven theories propose that an individual's attentional control settings determine whether salient stimuli capture attention. However, recent studies have suggested a hybrid model in which salient stimuli attract visual attention but can be actively suppressed by top-down attentional mechanisms. Support for this hybrid model has primarily come from ERP studies demonstrating that salient stimuli, which fail to capture attention, also elicit a distractor positivity (P_D) component, a putative neural index of suppression. Other support comes from a handful of behavioral studies showing that processing at the salient locations is inhibited compared with other locations. The current study was designed to link the behavioral and neural evidence by combining ERP recordings with an experimental paradigm that provides a behavioral measure of suppression. We found that, when a salient distractor item elicited the P_D component, processing at the location of this distractor was suppressed below baseline levels. Furthermore, the magnitude of behavioral suppression and the magnitude of the P_D component covaried across participants. These findings provide a crucial connection between the behavioral and neural measures of suppression, which opens the door to using the P_D component to assess the timing and neural substrates of the behaviorally observed suppression.

Luck et al. (2021) reviewed evidence that observers can learn to suppress attentional capture by salient distractors. Several commentaries were written in response to this review paper, many of which raised important and interesting issues. Here, we respond to these commentaries. Although there has been substantial progress in the attentional capture debate, there are still remaining issues that need to be addressed before the debate is completely resolved. Specifically, we summarize the need for an independent measure of bottom-up salience and better metrics of how attentional control unfolds over time. Ultimately, the field may need a more refined theoretical model of visual attention that distinguishes between attentional priority, attentional orienting, and attentional engagement.

Researchers have long debated whether salient stimuli can involuntarily 'capture' visual attention. We review here evidence for a recently discovered inhibitory mechanism that may help to resolve this debate. This evidence suggests that salient stimuli naturally attempt to capture attention, but capture can be avoided if the salient stimulus is suppressed before it captures attention. Importantly, the suppression process can be more or less effective as a result of changing task demands or lapses in cognitive control. Converging evidence for the existence of this suppression mechanism comes from multiple sources, including psychophysics, eye-tracking, and event-related potentials (ERPs). We conclude that the evidence for suppression is strong, but future research will need to explore the nature and limits of this mechanism.

Previous research has revealed that people can suppress salient stimuli that might otherwise capture visual attention. The present study tests between 3 possible mechanisms of visual suppression. According to first-order feature suppression models, items are suppressed on the basis of simple feature values. According to second-order feature suppression models, items are suppressed on the basis of local discontinuities within a given feature dimension. According to global-salience suppression models, items are suppressed on the basis of their dimension-independent salience levels. The current study distinguished among these models by varying the predictability of the singleton color value. If items are suppressed by virtue of salience alone, then it should not matter whether the singleton color is predictable. However, evidence from probe processing and eye movements indicated that suppression is possible only when the color values are predictable. Moreover, the ability to suppress salient items developed gradually as participants gained experience with the feature that defined the salient distractor. These results are consistent with first-order feature suppression models, and are inconsistent with the other models of suppression. In other words, people primarily suppress salient distractors on the basis of their simple features and not on the basis of salience per se. (PsycINFO Database Record