The Risks of Downplaying Top-Down Control

Caitlin A. Sisk; Rodger W. Remington; Yuhong V. Jiang

doi:10.5334/joc.26

Abstract

Is top-down control necessarily scarce, slow, and hence unimportant in visual selection? Here we outline the risks of downplaying top-down control. Contrary to Theeuwes’ review, we suggest that not all sources of attention map onto a unitary attentional priority map. Goals and search habits may influence where and how people deploy attention, respectively. Because goals have modulatory effects on sensory processing, their impact on attention is broad and not always deliberate. In addition, when multiple sources influence attention, top-down control often dominates over less deliberate forms of attention. We agree with Theeuwes that selection history can drive attention independent of explicit goals. Nonetheless, top-down control remains a cornerstone of visual selection.

References

Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437–443. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bacon, W. F., & Egeth, H. E. (1994). Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture. Perception & Psychophysics, 55(5), 485–496. DOI: 10.3758/BF03205306
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Becker, S. I., Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. W. (2013). Attentional capture does not depend on feature similarity, but on target-nontarget relations. Psychological Science, 24(5), 634–647. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612458528
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1030–1044. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1030
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Irons, J., Folk, C., & Remington, R. (2011). All set! Evidence of simultaneous attentional control settings for multiple target colors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 758–775. DOI: 10.1037/a0026578
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jiang, Y. V. (2017). Habitual versus goal-driven attention. Cortex. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.06.018
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jiang, Y. V., Sha, L. Z., & Remington, R. W. (2015). Modulation of spatial attention by goals, statistical learning, and monetary reward. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 77(7), 2189–2206. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-015-0952-z
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jiang, Y. V., Swallow, K. M., & Rosenbaum, G. M. (2013). Guidance of spatial attention by incidental learning and endogenous cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(1), 285–297. DOI: 10.1037/a0028022
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pashler, H. E. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
TheeuwesJ. (2018). Visual Selection: Usually Fast and Automatic; Seldom Slow and Volitional. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 29. DOI: 10.5334/joc.13
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wu, S., & Remington, R. W. (2003). Characteristics of covert and overt visual orienting: Evidence from attentional and oculomotor capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29(5), 1050–1067. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.5.1050
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

The Risks of Downplaying Top-Down Control

Abstract

Paradigm

My account