Search

This study investigated threat-related attention biases using a new visual search paradigm with eye tracking, which allows for measuring attentional disengagement in isolation. This is crucial as previous studies have been unable to distinguish between engagement, disengagement, and behavioral freezing. Thirty-three participants (M age = 28.75 years, SD = 8.98; 21 women) with self-reported specific phobia (spiders, snakes, and pointed objects) and their matched controls (M age = 28.38 years, SD = 8.66; 21 women) took part in the experiment. The participants were instructed to initially focus on a picture in the center of the screen, then search for a target picture in an outer circle consisting of six images, and respond via a button press whether the object in the target picture was oriented to the left or right. We found that phobic individuals show delayed disengagement and slower decision times compared with non-phobic individuals, regardless of whether the stimulus was threat-related or neutral. These results indicate that phobic individuals tend to exhibit poorer attentional control mechanisms and problems inhibiting irrelevant information. We also confirmed a threat-unrelated shared feature effect with complex stimuli (delayed disengagement when an attended stimulus and an unattended target share common stimulus features). This process might play a role in various experimental setups investigating attentional disengagement that has not yet been considered. These findings are important, as good attentional control may serve as a protective mechanism against anxiety disorders., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In a circular visual search paradigm, the disengagement of attention is automatically delayed when a fixated but irrelevant center item shares features of the target item. Additionally, if mismatching letters are presented on these items, response times (RTs) are slowed further, while matching letters evoke faster responses (Wright, Boot, & Brockmole, 2015a). This is interpreted as a functional reason of the delayed disengagement effect in terms of deeper processing of the fixation item. The purpose of the present study was the generalization of these findings to unfamiliar symbols and to linear instead of circular layouts. Experiments 1 and 2 replicated the functional delayed disengagement effect with letters and symbols. In Experiment 3, the search layout was changed from circular to linear and only saccades from left to right had to be performed. We did not find supportive data for the proposed functional nature of the effect. In Experiments 4 and 5, we tested whether the unidirectional saccade decision, a potential blurring by adjacent items, or a lack of statistical power was the cause of the diminished effects in Experiment 3. With increased sample sizes, the delayed disengagement effect as well as its functional underpinning were now observed consistently. Taken together, our results support prior assumptions that delayed disengagement effects are functionally rooted in a deeper processing of the fixation items. They also generalize to unfamiliar symbols and linear display layouts.

Shielding visual search against interference from salient distractors becomes more efficient over time for display regions where distractors appear more frequently, rather than only rarely Goschy, Bakos, Müller, & Zehetleitner (Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1195, 2014). We hypothesized that the locus of this learned distractor probability-cueing effect depends on the dimensional relationship of the to-be-inhibited distractor relative to the to-be-attended target. If the distractor and target are defined in different visual dimensions (e.g., a color-defined distractor and orientation-defined target, as in Goschy et al. (Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1195, 2014), distractors may be efficiently suppressed by down-weighting the feature contrast signals in the distractor-defining dimension Zehetleitner, Goschy, & Müller (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 38: 941-957, 2012), with stronger down-weighting being applied to the frequent- than to the rare-distractor region. However, given dimensionally coupled feature contrast signal weighting (cf. Müller J, Heller & Ziegler (Perception & Psychophysics 57:1-17, 1995), this dimension-(down-)weighting strategy would not be effective when the target and the distractors are defined within the same dimension. In this case, suppression may operate differently: by inhibiting the entire frequent-distractor region on the search-guiding master saliency map. The downside of inhibition at this level is that, although it reduces distractor interference in the inhibited (frequent-distractor) region, it also impairs target processing in that region-even when no distractor is actually present in the display. This predicted qualitative difference between same- and different-dimension distractors was confirmed in the present study (with 184 participants), thus furthering our understanding of the functional architecture of search guidance, especially regarding the mechanisms involved in shielding search from the interference of distractors that consistently occur in certain display regions.