Visual Distraction Disrupts Category-tuned Attentional
Filters in Ventral Visual Cortex

Blaire Dube, Lasyapriya Pidaparthi, and Julie D. Golomb

Astratto

■ Our behavioral goals shape how we process information via
attentional filters that prioritize goal-relevant information, dictat-
ing both where we attend and what we attend to. When some-
thing unexpected or salient appears in the environment, Esso
captures our spatial attention. Extensive research has focused
on the spatiotemporal aspects of attentional capture, but what
happens to concurrent nonspatial filters during visual distraction?
Here, we demonstrate a novel, broader consequence of distrac-
zione: widespread disruption to filters that regulate category-
specific object processing. We recorded fMRI while participants
viewed arrays of face/house hybrid images. On distractor-absent
trials, we found robust evidence for the standard signature of
category-tuned attentional filtering: greater BOLD activation in
fusiform face area during attend-faces blocks and in parahippo-

campal place area during attend-houses blocks. Tuttavia, on trials
where a salient distractor (white rectangle) flashed abruptly around
a nontarget location, not only was spatial attention captured, Ma
the concurrent category-tuned attentional filter was disrupted,
revealing a boost in activation for the to-be-ignored category. Questo
disruption was robust, resulting in errant processing—and early
SU, prioritization—of goal-inconsistent information. These find-
ings provide a direct test of the filter disruption theory: that in
addition to disrupting spatial attention, distraction also disrupts
nonspatial attentional filters tuned to goal-relevant information.
Inoltre, these results reveal that, under certain circumstances,
the filter disruption may be so profound as to induce a full rever-
sal of the attentional control settings, which carries novel impli-
cations for both theory and real-world perception. ■

INTRODUCTION

Our visual environments are too complex to process in their
entirety. To compensate, we filter incoming visual informa-
tion based on current behavioral goals, using attention to
selectively process only the most relevant information
(per esempio., Desimone & Duncan, 1995; Bundesen, 1990). One
way that we filter information is by prioritizing objects based
on high-level attributes such as category: When searching
for a friend on a busy street, for instance, we prioritize the
faces in the scene at the expense of less relevant categories
such as houses. Category-based attention ensures that
important information is prioritized for attentional selec-
tion early (Nako, Wu, & Eimer, 2014; Zhang & Luck,
2009) and simultaneously throughout space (Liu & Hou,
2011; Liu & Mance, 2011; White & Carrasco, 2011; Sàenz,
Buraĉas, & Boynton, 2003; Saenz, Buracas, & Boynton,
2002), increasing search efficiency (per esempio., speed).

Such category-tuned filters are partially subserved
by category-specific neural regions in ventral visual
cortex, such as the fusiform face area (FFA; Kanwisher,
McDermott, & Chun, 1997; Mccarthy, Puce, Gore, & Truett,
1997) and the parahippocampal place area (PPA; Epstein &
Kanwisher, 1998). These regions respond preferentially to
viewing images of faces and scene stimuli, rispettivamente, E
are sensitive to attentional manipulations. Neural evidence

The Ohio State University

© 2022 Istituto di Tecnologia del Massachussetts

of object-based attentional filtering has been demonstrated
using categorically defined stimuli that overlap in space
(cioè., “hybrid” stimuli of semitransparent superimposed
images) as well as during binocular rivalry and mental
imagery, with BOLD responses enhanced in FFA relative
to PPA when observers attend to faces and in PPA relative
to FFA when observers attend to houses (Baldauf &
Desimone, 2014; Hsieh, Colas, & Kanwisher, 2012;
O’Craven & Kanwisher, 2000; Serences, Schwarzbach,
Courtney, Golay, & Yantis, 2004; Tong, Nakayama,
Vaughan, & Kanwisher, 1998). This category-based atten-
tional modulation has been linked to frontoparietal gamma
synchrony (Baldauf & Desimone, 2014), attentional shift
signals (Serences et al., 2004), and functional connectivity
(Turk-Browne, Norman-Haignere, & Mccarthy, 2010).

Allo stesso tempo, efficient goal-directed behavior also
relies heavily on spatial attention (Nako et al., 2014; Liu
& Mance, 2011; White & Carrasco, 2011; Zhang & Luck,
2009; Saenz et al., 2002, 2003; Hoffman & Nelson, 1981).
Goal-directed spatial attention and feature- or category-
based filters can coexist (Stein & Peelen, 2017), allowing
us to tune attention to task-relevant objects in attended
locations. Tuttavia, many of these studies have over-
looked a critical problem: Spatial attention is not static;
in the real world, dynamic and distracting information also
competes for selection. What are the consequences for
category-based attention when distracting information
appears in the search environment?

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 34:8, pag. 1521–1533
https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01870

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j

/

o
C
N
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

3
4
8
1
5
2
1
2
0
3
3
1
6
5

/

/
j

o
C
N
_
UN
_
0
1
8
7
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Most prior work on visual distraction has focused on dis-
ruptions to spatial attention: The presence of distractors
increases search RTs (Theeuwes & Burger, 1998; Folk,
Remington, & Johnston, 1992; Remington, Johnston, &
Yantis, 1992; Yantis & Jonides, 1984; Jonides & Irwin,
1981), attracts eye movements (Liesefeld, Liesefeld,
Töllner, & Müller, 2017; Henderson, 2003; Theeuwes,
Kramer, Hahn, Irwin, & Zelinsky, 1999; Theeuwes, Kramer,
Hahn, & Irwin, 1998), and elicits electrophysiological
markers of covert spatial attention (Bacigalupo & Luck,
2019; Wang, van Driel, Ort, & Theeuwes, 2019; Luck
& Hillyard, 1994) during visual search. More recent
work has started to evaluate broader consequences of
visual distraction, Per esempio, demonstrating that atten-
tional capture can also distort feature perception (Chen,
Leber, & Golomb, 2019). Tuttavia, what about other types
of concurrent nonspatial attentional control? Recentemente,
Dube and Golomb (2021) proposed a filter disruption the-
ory, suggesting that in addition to disrupting spatial atten-
tion filters, visual distraction also disrupts currently active
nonspatial filters. Dube and Golomb (2021) used a behav-
ioral memory-driven capture paradigm (Olivers, Meijer, &
Theeuwes, 2006) to demonstrate that distraction disrupts
the filter that prioritizes relevant information for visual
working memory ( VWM) encoding, resulting in irrelevant
distractor features intruding into VWM. Tuttavia, IL
most direct prediction of this theory remains untested:
that distraction could even disrupt a prolonged, robust
attentional control setting like a stable category-based fil-
ter, causing a temporary increase in neural processing of
task-irrelevant information across the visual field.

In the current study, we use face–house hybrid stimuli
and fMRI to directly evaluate this key prediction of the filter
disruption theory: in addition to capturing spatial attention,
visual distraction also momentarily disrupts a category-
tuned attentional filter, causing the selection and processing
of stimuli from a task-irrelevant category that would other-
wise be ignored. We predicted that, on distractor-absent
trials, we would observe the standard signature of atten-
tional modulation: greater FFA activity on attend-faces
blocks relative to attend-houses blocks and greater PPA
activity on attend-houses blocks relative to attend-faces
blocks. Critically, on trials where a salient distractor appears,
we consider two competing hypotheses: (1) Spatial atten-
tion is captured, but the category filter remains intact, result-
ing in a behavioral capture effect (per esempio., slower RTs), Ma
preserved neural selectivity (per esempio., greater FFA during
attend-faces blocks), versus (2) spatial attention is captured
and the category-tuned attentional filter is also broken,
resulting in the errant processing of the irrelevant object
categoria (cioè., houses during attend-faces blocks).

METHODS

Overview

the target via a white border. Participants were instructed
to attend to one stimulus category (cioè., attend-faces
blocks and attend-houses blocks) and determine whether
the identity of the target stimulus on the current trial
matched that of the previous trial. On some trials, a salient
distractor (a white dotted line) appeared briefly around
one of the other three hybrid images. To examine
category-tuned attentional filtering, we measured BOLD
activation in the FFA and the PPA. Critically, here, we are
not testing whether a distracting image is processed dur-
ing attentional capture. Piuttosto, we are evaluating whether
attentional capture breaks a long-term (across-block) cat-
egory filter, causing the incidental processing of the irrel-
evant object category within the hybrid images.

Participants

Fifteen participants participated in the study (eight
women, seven men; mean age = 23.5 years, range =
19–31 years) for monetary compensation ($10/hr for the behavioral prescreen, $15/hr for the scanning session).
One participant was an author but was scanned before
their role in or knowledge of the study. All participants
reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision, provided
informed consent, and were prescreened for MRI eligi-
bility. The study protocol was approved by the Ohio
State University Biomedical Sciences institutional review
board.

The sample size was selected with the goal of extensive
within-participant sampling and was chosen to be suffi-
cient to detect the characteristically large effect sizes for
univariate comparisons of FFA/PPA activity, comparable
to prior studies (Peters, Roelfsema, & Goebel, 2012; Yi,
Kelley, Marois, & Chun, 2006; Wojciulik, Kanwisher, &
Driver, 1998). The approach of collecting relatively smaller
sample sizes, but with extensive numbers of trials for each
participant, is an alternative way of increasing statistical
power (Naselaris, Allen, & Kay, 2021) and carries certain
benefici, including the ability to assess the robustness of
effects at the individual participant level. In our design,
each of our participants completed 576 experimental tri-
COME, and we show both group- and individual-level results
in our data figures.

Stimuli and Task

Stimuli were generated and presented using MATLAB
(Mathworks, Inc.) and the Psychophysics Toolbox
(Brainard, 1997) and were presented on a gray back-
ground for both the experimental and localizer tasks. Par-
ticipants viewed all stimuli from a distance of 74 cm via a
mirror 45° above the head coil.

Experimental Task

On each trial, participants viewed an array of four
face/house hybrid images, one of which was defined as

See Figure 1 for a trial schematic. Experimental stimuli
were grayscale face/ house hybrid images, made by

1522

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volume 34, Numero 8

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j

/

o
C
N
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

3
4
8
1
5
2
1
2
0
3
3
1
6
5

/

/
j

o
C
N
_
UN
_
0
1
8
7
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j

/

o
C
N
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

3
4
8
1
5
2
1
2
0
3
3
1
6
5

/

/
j

o
C
N
_
UN
_
0
1
8
7
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figura 1. (UN) The experimental trial sequence. In the scanner, participants performed a 1-back task based on the relevant category (here attend-
faces), for the images appearing in the target box (white border). Participants responded with a “1” if the relevant image did not repeat and “2” if it
did. On 25% of trials, a salient abrupt-onset distractor (dotted white border) appeared around one of the three nontarget hybrid images. The salient
distractor appeared 50 msec after the onset of the stimulus display for that trial and remained on-screen for 100 msec. Participants were instructed to
ignore this salient distractor when it appeared. (B) The a priori FFA and PPA ROIs for a sample participant. (C) A whole-brain contrast showing
activation on salient-distractor-present contrasted with salient-distractor-absent trials, highlighting the VAN, with the rMFG, rIFG, and rTPJ ROIs
labeled.

overlaying a 50% transparent face image over a 50% trans-
parent house image. Hybrids were created from a bank of
160 total images (80 faces, as used in Golomb and
Kanwisher [2012] E 80 houses retrieved from a Google
image search and converted to grayscale), and face/house
image pairs were generated randomly and separately for
each participant (2304 unique hybrid images per partici-
pant: four per trial, 96 experimental trials per run, six
runs). Each experimental run consisted of two blocks of
48 trials: an attend-faces block and an attend-houses block
(order counterbalanced across runs; run order generated
randomly across participants). Each block began with the
500-msec presentation of an instruction screen (“Attend
faces” or “Attend houses”). The central fixation point on
each subsequent trial was either a letter “F” or “H” (size =
1°) to indicate the current target category, and this
remained on-screen for the duration of the block.

On each trial, four face/house hybrid images (size =
5° × 5°, eccentricity = 2.5°) were presented simulta-
neously in a 2 × 2 grid for 500 msec. One of the images

was framed with a white border, identifying it as the target
for that trial. Participants were instructed to perform a
1-back task on the image inside this target box, based on
the relevant category (the face or house); questo è, is the cur-
rent target face (or house) the same face (or house) as the
previous trial’s target? Participants responded on the
button box with a “2” if the target repeated and “1” if it
did not. The target (relevant-category image inside the
target box) repetition frequency was 20% per block. IL
nonrelevant category image inside the target box repeated
independently with the same frequency, as did both the
relevant and nonrelevant category images in the three
nontarget locations. Participants performed 48 trials in a
row for each block, with trials separated by an ISI of either
3 sec (50% of trials), 4.5 sec (33% of trials), O 6 sec
(17% of trials). The central fixation point (F or H) remained
on-screen for the duration of the block.

Our critical manipulation was that, SU 25% of trials (12
trials per block, randomly intermixed but never back-to-
back), a salient abrupt-onset distractor also appeared in

Dube, Pidaparthi, and Golomb

1523

the display. The salient distractor was a thick dotted white
border that flashed briefly around one of the three nontar-
get image locations (onset time = 50 msec after array
onset, duration = 100 msec). Participants were instructed
to ignore this dotted border when it appeared.

Participants completed six experimental runs (6.75 min
each). This resulted in 216 attend-faces distractor-absent
trials, 216 attend-houses distractor-absent trials, 72
attend-faces distractor-present trials, E 72 attend-
houses distractor-present trials. The location of the target
Immagine, whether the salient distractor appeared, and the
location of the salient distractor were all randomized
across trials. We note that the task was intentionally diffi-
cult (the hybrid images substantially increase perceptual
load, and the 1-back task requires working memory
resources and a strong attentional control setting) A
further incentivize attentional filtering.

Functional Localizer Task

Participants also completed two experimental runs of a
standard functional localizer task to localize FFA and PPA
ROIs. Participants viewed blocks of faces or houses (single
images presented sequentially at screen center, sized 10°)
and performed a 1-back task. Images were presented for
300 msec with a 500-msec ISI, and 1-back (repetition) fre-
quency was 10%. There were 20 trials per block, and par-
ticipants performed 13 blocks per run (five house blocks,
five face blocks, and three fixation blocks during which
only a fixation point appeared).

fMRI Acquisition

The study was carried out at the Ohio State University
Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Brain Imaging with
a Siemens Prisma 3-T MRI scanner using a 32-channel
phase array receiver head coil. Functional data were
acquired using a T2-weighted gradient-echo sequence
(repetition time = 1500 msec, echo time = 28 msec, flip
angle = 70°). We used multiband whole-brain coverage
aligned to the anterior commissure–posterior commis-
sure (48 slices, 3 × 3 × 3 mm voxel, 10% gap, multiband
factor = 3). We also collected a high-resolution MPRAGE
anatomic scan at 1-mm3 resolution for each participant.
Each participant was scanned in one 2-hr session.

fMRI Preprocessing

The fMRI data were preprocessed with Brain Voyager QX
(Brain Innovation). All functional data were corrected for
slice acquisition time and head motion, temporally filtered
(general linear model [GLM] Fourier; two cycles), and spa-
tially smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of 4-mm FWHM.
Runs with abrupt motion (>1 mm) were discarded from
analyses, resulting in the removal of a single run from
three separate participants and all six experimental runs
for a single participant and leaving a final n = 14. Data

for each participant were normalized into Talairach space
(Talairach & Tournoux, 1998).

ROIs

Our main analyses focused on two a priori functionally
defined ROIs: the FFA and the PPA. We localized the FFA
and PPA using standard procedures: Using data acquired
from the independent localizer scan, for each participant,
we defined a bilateral face-selective FFA in the mid-
fusiform gyrus that responded more strongly to faces than
houses and a bilateral house-selective PPA in the parahip-
pocampal gyrus that responded more strongly to houses
than faces. The resultant ROIs were contiguous voxels
(cluster threshold = 10) that demonstrated categorical
preference at a significance of p < 10−3 (uncorrected). For two participants, we were unable to localize left FFA at this threshold, so we only included right FFA ROIs. For all other participants, we averaged across left and right ROIs for FFA and PPA analyses. The reported pattern of results is the same for left and right ROIs. We performed additional exploratory analyses to evalu- ate the effects of the salient distractor in the ventral atten- tion network ( VAN). The VAN was identified based on a contrast of distractor-present trials relative to distractor- absent trials regardless of attended category. We localized ROIs in right TPJ (rTPJ), right middle frontal gyrus (rMFG), and right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG), well-known regions of the VAN that detect salient events outside the current focus of attention (Shulman et al., 2009; Indovina & Macaluso, 2007; Serences et al., 2005; Downar, Crawley, Mikulis, & Davis, 2001; Corbetta, Kincade, Ollinger, Mcavoy, & Gordon, 2000). We defined these ROIs for each participant using a leave-one-subject-out procedure to avoid circularity concerns (Esterman, Tamber-Rosenau, Chiu, & Yantis, 2010). We iteratively left a single partici- pant out of the group GLM and performed a whole-brain analysis on all trials on the group-level (N − 1) data to localize the relevant ROIs for the left-out participant, contrasting distractor-present trials relative to distractor- absent trials. From this contrast, we defined a set of contiguous voxels (cluster threshold = 30) in the rTPJ, rMFG, and rIFG for each participant that demonstrated substantially greater activation on distractor-present trials relative to distractor-absent trials at a significance of p < 10−12 (uncorrected). These secondary ROIs were only analyzed for the final exploratory tests contrasting the first versus second half of trials: We report results from all three ROIs but focus our discussion on the rTPJ as a representative ROI from the VAN given its robust role in detecting unexpected events of potential behavioral relevance (i.e., a distractor that is visually similar/related to the target [Natale, Marzi, & Macaluso, 2010; Hu, Bu, Song, Zhen, & Liu, 2009; Hampshire, Duncan, & Owen, 2007; Serences et al., 2005]) and as a “reset” mechanism for reorienting (Corbetta, Patel, & Shulman, 2008). Figure 1B and C shows all ROIs. 1524 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 34, Number 8 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . e d u / j / o c n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / 3 4 8 1 5 2 1 2 0 3 3 1 6 5 / / j o c n _ a _ 0 1 8 7 0 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Analyses Behavior Average RTs for the 1-back task were calculated per condi- 0—a tion using only correct trials. We also calculated d sensitivity metric based on signal detection theory—as a 0 measures measure of accuracy for each condition. Here, d sensitivity to a target (i.e., a repeat trial) based on the num- ber of hits (correct recognition of a repeat trial) relative to false alarms (erroneously identifying a nonrepeat trial as a repeat; Stanislaw & Todorov, 1999). We also report the results of an exploratory analysis on behavioral data in which we compare RT results from the first half of a block to the second half of a block to evaluate for evidence of habituation to the salient onset distractor (i.e., Won & Geng, 2020) within a given control setting. fMRI Univariate fMRI analyses were carried out using Brain Voyager QX (Brain Innovation). Using the functionally defined FFA and PPA ROIs for each participant, we applied a GLM to evaluate the mean BOLD response ( beta weights) for each experimental condition, ROI, and partic- ipant. Incorporated in the GLM were regressors for each of the four experimental conditions (attend-faces distractor- absent, attend-faces distractor-present, attend-houses distractor-absent, and attend-houses distractor-present) plus an instruction condition (“attend face” or “attend house” text before each block). “Distractor-present” and “distractor-absent” here and in the remainder of the text refer to the presence/absence, respectively, of the salient abrupt-onset distractor. The beta weights for the four experimental conditions were submitted to repeated- measures ANOVAs and paired t tests. We conducted analyses within each ROI separately and also combined across ROIs by averaging the BOLD responses for each ROI’s preferred and nonpreferred conditions. We first performed planned paired-samples t tests to compare activation on attend-faces trials versus attend- houses trials in the distractor-absent conditions to estab- lish baseline filtering in each ROI and then performed the same contrasts for the distractor-present conditions. We then conducted 2 (Target Category: attend-faces vs. attend-houses) × 2 (Distractor Condition: absent vs. present) repeated-measures ANOVAs in FFA and PPA ROIs. Of particular importance in this analysis is the Target Category × Distractor Condition interaction, which pro- vides insight into whether attentional filtering patterns are substantially different on distractor-present relative to distractor-absent trials. Next, we combined across FFA and PPA ROIs to evaluate activation reflecting the processing of the preferred stimulus category (FFA activity on attend-faces trials, PPA activity on attend-houses trials) relative to the nonpre- ferred stimulus category (PPA activity on attend-faces tri- als, FFA activity on attend-houses trials) across distractor conditions. We performed an additional 2 (Target Category: attend-preferred vs. attend-nonpreferred) × 2 (Distractor Condition: absent vs. present) x 2 (ROI: FFA vs. PPA) repeated-measures ANOVA. As a measure of filter strength, we also calculated an attentional filtering index for each ROI, participant, and distractor condition using the formula below, where higher positive values indicate stronger, more effective attentional filtering. ð ð Attentional Filtering Index ¼ Attpreferred − Attnonpreferred Attpreferred þ Attnonpreferred We performed a 2 (ROI: FFA vs. PPA) × 2 (Distractor Con- dition: absent vs. present) ANOVA on attentional filtering indices. We followed up with post hoc one sample t tests to evaluate whether attentional filtering was significantly nonzero in each distractor condition across ROIs. Þ Þ Finally, we performed exploratory analyses to evaluate changes in the first half versus the second half of experi- mental blocks (block phase: first half vs. second half ), for the FFA and PPA analyses described above, as well as the rTPJ ROI. For this, we applied a GLM with eight regressors (attend-faces distractor-absent block Phase 1, attend-faces distractor-absent block Phase 2; etc.), plus an instruction condition, to evaluate mean BOLD response for each of the original four experimental conditions by block phase (first half vs. second half ), per participant. Effect sizes (mean and 90% CI) are provided for all analyses. RESULTS Behavioral and Neural Confirmation of Attentional Capture To confirm that the salient distractor captured spatial attention as intended, we compared mean RTs (Table 1) across conditions in the 1-back task. We subjected RTs to a 2 (Distractor Condition: absent vs. present) × 2 (Tar- get Category: attend-faces vs. attend-houses) repeated- measures ANOVA. We observed a significant main effect of Distractor Condition, F(1, 13) = 41.75, p < .001, ηp 2 = .76 (90% CI [0.97, 2.33]), such that RTs were slower on distractor-present trials relative to distractor-absent trials, demonstrating reliable attentional capture. There was also a significant main effect of Target Category, F(1, 13) = 47.92, p < .001, ηp 2 = .79 (90% CI [0.53, 0.86]), such that RTs were generally slower in the attend-houses conditions relative to the attend-faces conditions, although the lack of a significant interaction, F(1, 13) = 0.01, p = .93, ηp 2 = .001 (90% CI [0, 0.03]), suggests that the distractor costs were comparable across categories. The response accuracy (Table 1) data trended in the same patterns as RT, suggesting no speed–accuracy trade- offs: here, a significant main effect of Distractor Condition, F(1, 13) = 6.73, p = .02, ηp 2 = .34 (90% CI [0.03, 0.56]), with a nonsignificant main effect of Target Category, F(1, Dube, Pidaparthi, and Golomb 1525 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . e d u / j / o c n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / 3 4 8 1 5 2 1 2 0 3 3 1 6 5 / / j o c n _ a _ 0 1 8 7 0 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Table 1. Summary of Mean RT (sec), Hit Rate (HR), False Alarm (FA) Rate, and Accuracy (d 0) Attend-faces, Distractor-absent Attend-faces, Distractor-present Attend-houses, Distractor-absent Attend-houses, Distractor-present RT (SD) HR (SD) FA (SD) d0 (SD) 0.99 (0.18) 0.50 (0.17) 0.10 (0.11) 1.40 (0.63) 1.12 (0.22) 0.39 (0.17) 0.11 (0.13) 0.94 (0.85) 1.11 (0.20) 0.47 (0.15) 0.13 (0.10) 1.05 (0.51) 1.24 (0.26) 0.31 (0.24) 0.11 (0.08) 0.75 (0.87) Data for all four experimental conditions. d0 is calculated per participant from hit rate and false alarm rate using d0 = ZHIT − ZFA where z represents the respective z transformations (Macmillan & Creelman, 1990). 13) = 1.78, p = .21, ηp 2 = .12 (90% CI [0, 0.38]). Again, there was no significant interaction, F(1, 13) = 0.22, p = .65, ηp 2 = .02 (90% CI [0, 0.22]). A whole-brain contrast of distractor-present versus distractor-absent trials also confirmed previously reported neural patterns associated with attentional capture, namely, increased activation in the VAN, including the rTPJ, rMFG, and rIFG (Figure 1C). Neural Processing Via Category-tuned Attentional Filters in FFA and PPA The key question this study was designed to address was whether the attentional capture effects were accompanied by changes to category-tuned filters. In both FFA and PPA (Figure 2A), we observed the expected pattern of standard category-based attentional modulation on distractor- absent trials: significantly greater FFA activation on attend-faces trials relative to attend-house trials, t(13) = 5.70, p < .001, d = 1.52 (90% CI [0.73, 2.29]) and signifi- cantly greater PPA activation on attend-houses trials rela- tive to attend-faces trials, t(13) = 13.6, p < .001, d = 3.64 (90% CI [2.15, 5.10]). This baseline comparison confirms that, in the absence of a salient visual distractor, participants were effectively attending the target category and filtering out the irrelevant nontarget category in the hybrid images. Strikingly, on distractor-present trials, this pattern was dramatically altered in both FFA and PPA. In fact, if any- thing, the filtering pattern was reversed: FFA activation to the hybrid images was numerically greater on attend- houses blocks relative to attend-faces blocks, t(13) = −1.90, p = .08, d = −0.51 (90% CI [−1.06, 0.06]), and PPA activation was significantly greater on attend-faces blocks relative to attend-houses blocks, t(13) = 10.86, p < .001, d = 2.90 (90% CI [1.67, 4.11]). This suggests that, under conditions of distraction, the filter that prioritized the to-be-attended category was not only disrupted but also reversed, causing the incidental prioritization of the faces in the hybrid face/house images on attend-houses trials and the incidental prioritization of the houses in the hybrid images on attend-faces trials. The Target Category × Distractor Condition interactions were signif- icant in both ROIs, FFA: F(1, 13) = 9.21, p = .01, ηp 2 = .42 (90% CI [0.07, 0.61]); PPA: F(1, 13) = 178.34, p < .001, ηp 2 = .93 (90% CI [0.83, 0.95]). Figure 2B also shows the analysis combining across ROIs, with data sorted into preferred versus nonpreferred stimulus category (ANOVA statistics in Table 2). In addi- tion to corroborating the significant effects above, there was a significant main effect of ROI, with ROI also modu- lating the other effects, such that overall BOLD activation was generally greater in FFA, but PPA showed greater differences between conditions. To quantify attentional filter strength more directly, we calculated an attentional filtering index for each ROI and distractor condition for each participant (Figure 2C; com- bined ROI in Figure 2D). Consistent with the above results, we observed a significant main effect of distractor condition, F(1, 13) = 112.71, p < .001, ηp 2 = .90 (90% CI [0.75, 0.93]), with the filter disruption significant in both ROIs: FFA distractor absent versus present: t(13) = 4.21, p = .001, d = 1.13 (90% CI [0.54, 1.68]); PPA distractor absent versus present: t(13) = 8.88, p < .001, d = 2.37 (90% CI [1.47, 3.23]). Critically, we observed robust filter disruption in all 14 participants in both ROIs. Moreover, the attentional filtering index was significant (greater than zero) in both FFA and PPA on distractor-absent trials, t(13) = 5.14, p < .001, d = 1.37 (90% CI [0.62, 2.10]), and t(13) = 9.22, p < .001, d = 2.46 (90% CI [1.38, 3.52]), and significantly less than zero on distractor-present trials, t(13) = −2.65, p = .02, d = −0.71 (90% CI [−1.29, −0.11]), and t (13) = −7.44, p < .001, d = −1.99 (90% CI [−2.90, −1.06]). To confirm the stability of the filter disruption in FFA and PPA, we ran two control analyses (Figure 2E). First, we equated for number of trials across conditions by ran- domly selecting an equal number of distractor-absent trials as distractor-present trials. The results were the same: Attentional filtering for the combined ROIs was signifi- cantly disrupted (i.e., weaker on distractor-absent relative to distractor-present trials), t(13) = 6.52, p < .001, d = 1.74 (90% CI [1.01, 2.43]), with the disruption present in 14 of 14 participants. Furthermore, attentional filtering was greater than zero on distractor-absent trials, t(13) = 6.00, p < .001, d = 1.60 (90% CI [1.05, 2.10]), and signif- icantly less than zero on distractor-present trials, t(13) = −5.40, p < .001, d = −1.44 (90% CI [−1.91, −0.92]). 1526 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 34, Number 8 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . e d u / j / o c n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / 3 4 8 1 5 2 1 2 0 3 3 1 6 5 / / j o c n _ a _ 0 1 8 7 0 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . e d u / j / o c n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / 3 4 8 1 5 2 1 2 0 3 3 1 6 5 / / j o c n _ a _ 0 1 8 7 0 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Figure 2. Summary of fMRI BOLD results. (A) Activation levels in the FFA and PPA across all experimental conditions and (B) activation in combined ROI across all experimental conditions. (C) Attentional filtering index (the proportion of total activation reflecting the processing of the preferred stimulus category) for the FFA and PPA and combined in (D) where each data point represents a single participant. This is a measure of filtering effectiveness—see box in the figure for calculation. A negative slope indicates filter disruption. Values below zero indicate filter reversal. (E) Results from two control analyses, plotting attentional filtering index for the combined ROI. Error bars are within-participant standard error (Morey, 2008). Second, we removed trials immediately after distractor- present trials. Again, attentional filtering for the combined ROIs was significantly disrupted on distractor-present tri- als: t (13) = 8.76, p < .001, d = 2.34 (90% CI [1.45, 3.18]), with the disruption present in 14 of 14 participants, and attentional filtering was significantly greater than zero on distractor-absent trials, t(13) = 10.00, p < .001, d = 2.68 (90% CI [1.88, 3.38]), and significantly less than zero on distractor-present trials, t(13) = −2.37, p = .034, d = −0.63 (90% CI [−1.00, −0.25]). Exploratory Analysis: Distractor Habituation across a Block As a final, exploratory analysis, we asked whether the observed filter disruption effect might decrease over time. Dube, Pidaparthi, and Golomb 1527 Table 2. Statistics for the 2 (Target Category: Attend-preferred vs. Attend-nonpreferred) × 2 (Distractor Condition: Absent vs. Present) × 2 (ROI: FFA vs. PPA) Repeated-Measures ANOVA Carried Out on BOLD Activation in FFA and PPA ROI Target category (preferred vs. nonpreferred) Distractor condition ROI × Target Category ROI × Distractor Condition Target Category × Distractor Condition ROI × Target Category × Distractor Condition df 1, 13 1, 13 1, 13 1, 13 1, 13 1, 13 1, 13 F 18.93 8.68 63.79 16.39 13.49 105.05 24.61 p < .001 .011 < .001 .001 .003 < .001 < .001 ηp 2 [90% CI] .59 [.23, .73] .4 [.06, .61] .83 [.61, .89] .56 [.19, .71] .51 [.15, .68] .89 [.74, .93] .65 [.31, .77] There is prior evidence that the interference produced by a salient distractor—both with respect to RT costs ( Won & Geng, 2020) and oculomotor responses (Bonetti & Turatto, 2019; Chelazzi, Marini, Pascucci, & Turatto, 2019; Turatto, Bonetti, & Pascucci, 2018)—can decrease after repeated or prolonged exposure. Such habituation is typically studied over the course of an experiment when a salient onset distractor remains consistent. In the current task, whereas the salient onset distractor stimulus (dotted white border) remained consistent over the entire exper- iment, the attentional filter/control setting had to be updated at the start of each new block, such that the l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . e d u / j / o c n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / 3 4 8 1 5 2 1 2 0 3 3 1 6 5 / / j o c n _ a _ 0 1 8 7 0 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Figure 3. Summary of exploratory analyses of the first versus second halves of blocks. (A) Behavioral RT by distractor condition and block phase. (B) rTPJ activation by distractor condition and block phase. (C) Attentional filter strength (via the attentional filtering index) across distractor conditions and block phase, collapsed across ROI condition. (D) Participant-level RT, rTPJ activation, and the filtering index by block phase (where a negative slope indicates filter disruption and values below zero indicate filter reversal). Error bars are within-participant standard error (Morey, 2008). 1528 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 34, Number 8 to-be-filtered (nontarget) category reset accordingly. Thus, to explore if the consequences of attentional cap- ture on category-tuned filtering (i.e., incidentally pro- cessing the nontarget category) might be mitigated over time, we separated our data into trials occurring in the first half versus last half of each block. We compared (1) the category-tuned attentional filtering index (combined across FFA and PPA), (2) a behavioral measure of attentional capture (RT for distractor-present vs. distractor-absent trials), and (3) a generic neural measure of attentional cap- ture (rTPJ activation for distractor-present vs. distractor- absent trials). All three measures are shown across block phase at both the group and participant levels in Figure 3. In brief, the filter disruption cost in FFA/ PPA was reduced for the second half of the block relative to the first [Block Phase × Distractor Condition interaction, F(1, 13) = 74.95, p < .001, ηp 2 = .85 (90% CI [0.57, 0.88])]. The behavioral capture cost (RT) was also reduced marginally (Phase × Distractor interaction, F(1, 13) = 3.48, p = .08, ηp 2 = .21 (90% CI [0, 0.46]), but interestingly, the generic neural capture measure did not vary (Phase × Distractor interaction, F < 1.43, p > .25).

In terms of the attentional filtering index (Figure 3C), SU
distractor-absent trials, attentional filtering was strong (sig-
nificantly greater than zero) both early and later in the
block, T(13) = 9.09, P < .001, d = 2.43 (90% CI [1.51, 3.3]), and t(13) = 8.61, p < .001, d = 2.3 (90% CI [1.42, 3.13], respectively). On distractor-present trials, however, there was a notable difference over time: The attentional filter was disrupted and reversed (attentional filtering was significantly less than zero) early in the block, t(13) = −12.15, p < .001, d = −3.25 (90% CI [−4.34, −2.09]), but only more mildly disrupted (with no reversal) later in the block. In the second half of the block, there was still significant filter disruption, with the filtering index reduced on distractor-present compared to distractor- absent trials [paired-samples t test: t(13) = 3.62, p = .003, d = 0.97 (90% CI [0.42, 1.49])], but the filtering index remained positive [significantly greater than zero, t(13) = 2.59, p = .02, d = 0.69 (90% CI [0.19, 1.17])]. These results reveal that the distractor produced a significant cost to attentional filtering both early and later in a block, but this cost was substantially mitigated later in the block, where distraction disrupted but no longer reversed the filter. Intriguingly, the same analysis carried out on rTPJ BOLD activation yielded a different result (Figure 3B): Activation in rTPJ was reliably greater on distractor-present trials rel- ative to distractor-absent trials, F(1, 13) = 74.82, p < .001, ηp 2 = .85 (90% CI [0.66, 0.90]), but it was unaffected by block phase [in terms of both the lack of interaction and no significant main effect of block phase: F(1, 13) = 0.01, p = .92, ηp 2 = .001 (90% CI [0, 0.06])], suggesting that the neural response to the salient distractor itself remained equivalently strong over time (relative to the block onset), yet the impact of this distractor on attentional filtering and processing of the hybrid images was apparently reduced. The rTPJ pattern was consistent across the other localized ROIs of the VAN (rMFG and rIFG Block Phase × Distractor interaction, ps > .69).

DISCUSSION

We have long known that visual distraction disrupts spatial
Attenzione (Jonides & Irwin, 1981), but recently, the conse-
quences are being understood to be broader (Dube &
Golomb, 2021; Chen et al., 2019). The current findings
reveal even more fundamental consequences for visual
distraction. We show that distraction also disrupts a con-
currently maintained category-tuned filter, interrupting
the prioritization of goal-relevant information in the visual
scene. This is particularly notable because the filter here
reflected a prolonged, robust attentional control setting,
and the disruption resulted in a temporary preference
for task-irrelevant information. Inoltre, the filter dis-
ruption was reliable enough to be seen at the individual
participant level for all participants tested.

This study was designed to directly test the filter disrup-
tion theory proposed in Dube and Golomb (2021). Dube
and Golomb (2021) demonstrated that visual distraction
(by a similar abrupt onset distractor as the current study)
causes the incidental encoding of distractor features, pre-
sumably by disrupting the filter that controls VWM encod-
ing. When performing two sequential visual search tasks in
which color was irrelevant, memory-driven capture (exac-
erbated attentional capture when visual information
matches the contents of VWM; Olivers et al., 2006) era
elicited in the second search when the color of a singleton
matched the distractor color from the first search, suggest-
ing that the irrelevant Search 1 distractor color intruded
into memory and subsequently biased attention. How-
ever, although participants were told to ignore color, there
was not an explicit instruction to filter irrelevant features
from VWM encoding. Accordingly, we designed the cur-
rent study to investigate a more robust attentional filter,
such that the task required a long-term (cioè., sustained
for a several minute block), explicit category-tuned filter.
The results of this study extend the theoretical implica-
tions of Dube and Golomb (2021) in important ways,
revealing that attentional capture not only disrupts spatial
attention but also disrupts control over nonspatial filters
that regulate behavior, such that activity in ventral visual
cortex no longer reflects prioritization of goal-relevant
informazione.

The results thus provide direct support for the filter
disruption theory: During distraction, spatial attention is
captured and the category-tuned attentional filter is also
broken, resulting in the errant processing of the irrelevant
object category. Is this boost in irrelevant category pro-
cessing occurring primarily within the hybrid image at
the distractor location, or is the category-tuned filter dis-
rupted globally across the display? Although the current
experiment was not designed to assess spatial selectivity
(cioè., we did not control eye movements, and our localizer
task used large, central stimuli), we conducted some

Dube, Pidaparthi, and Golomb

1529

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j

/

o
C
N
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

3
4
8
1
5
2
1
2
0
3
3
1
6
5

/

/
j

o
C
N
_
UN
_
0
1
8
7
0
P
D

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

exploratory analyses capitalizing on the known contralat-
eral organization of visual cortex—that in both FFA and
PPA, neural activation is greater for stimuli presented on
the contralateral side of the visual display (Hemond,
Kanwisher, & Op de Beeck, 2007). We separately analyzed
FFA/PPA activation by hemisphere for the subset of trials
where the target and distractor were on opposite sides of the
display and found the same pattern of category tuning and
disruption in both hemispheres: UN 2 (distractor-present
vs. distractor-absent) × 2 (preferred vs. nonpreferred
target category) × 2 (contra-target vs. contra-distractor
hemisphere) ANOVA carried out on attentional filtering
indices yielded a significant Distractor Condition × Target
Category interaction, F(1, 13) = 80.4, P < .001, ηp 2 = .86 (90% CI [0.67, 0.91]), but no three-way interaction, F(1, 13) = 0.94, p = .35, ηp 2 = .07 (90% CI [0, 0.31]), suggesting that the filter disruption effect did not interact with hemisphere. Given the already coarse contralateral organization of the FFA and PPA and limitations of the current experimental design, these hemisphere-based analyses do not allow us the resolution to inspect activa- tion specific to the exact distractor or target locations and should be taken as exploratory, but these data suggest that the filter disruption is not limited solely to the distractor location. Such an effect would be consistent with the idea of a nonspatial category-tuned filter that operates globally across the visual field. It has been well established that feature-based attention operates quickly and globally in parallel across a visual scene, indepen- dently of spatial attention, allowing for a preliminary “scan” of the visual scene to help tune a spatial saliency map based on stimulus relevance (Liu & Mance, 2011; Serences & Boynton, 2007; Saenz et al., 2002; Treue & Martínez Trujillo, 1999). It is possible that nonspatial categorical filters may work in a similar way. If so, the current results suggest that, when the spatial atten- tional filter is broken, the category-tuned attentional filter may be similarly disrupted at both the location of the distractor and elsewhere, a conjecture that could be directly tested in future studies with more spatially sensitive methods. In terms of neural mechanisms or signatures of distrac- tion, many studies have focused on the role of the fronto- parietal dorsal attention network and VAN, with the dorsal attention network (including the intraparietal sulcus and FEFs) active during voluntary, goal-based orienting of attention and the VAN (including the rTPJ and right ventral frontal cortex) acting as a circuit breaker to the dorsal network when attention is reoriented to salient events outside the current focus, as during attentional capture (Shulman et al., 2009; Indovina & Macaluso, 2007; Serences et al., 2005; Downar et al., 2001; Corbetta et al., 2000). Our whole-brain contrasts of distractor-present ver- sus distractor-absent trials confirmed the involvement of the VAN in the current task. However, whereas prior studies have primarily focused analyses on these networks to assess questions related to spatial capture and recovery, here we demonstrate that category-selective visual object processing areas are also influenced by this disruption to control. How, exactly, the VAN communicates with category-specific regions in ventral visual cortex to disrupt filtering is an open question: Regions such as the FFA and PPA may receive direct modulatory signals via feedback from parietal VAN regions, or the “circuit breaker” signal may instead be sent to earlier visual regions responsible for basic visuospatial processing and then fed forward to higher-level FFA and PPA. Strikingly, we found that observers do not simply disen- gage from the current attentional filter setting during attentional capture; they appear to incidentally adopt an errant filter setting. Specifically, in both FFA and PPA, acti- vation reflecting the processing of the current nontarget category (i.e., houses on attend-faces blocks) was tempo- rarily greater than activation reflecting the current target category. In conceptualizing the current experiment and in the filter disruption theory framework more broadly, we predicted that the category-tuned filter might be dis- rupted under conditions of distraction. We did not predict the disruption would be so extreme as to cause filter rever- sal. The discovery that activity in ventral visual cortex instead prioritizes goal-inconsistent information immedi- ately after distraction raises new and interesting theoreti- cal consequences of distraction that would have been difficult to disentangle behaviorally. For example, behav- ioral accuracy in this task declined substantially on distractor-present compared to distractor-absent trials, which could be consistent with any of the following causes: spatial capture of attention away from the target (attentional capture), a disruption of attentional focus to the target category (filter disruption), and/or incidentally prioritizing the nontarget stimulus category over the target category (filter reversal). A unique appeal of this neuroimaging approach is that we are able to assess the processing of truly task-irrelevant information to reveal new potential consequences of distraction, both predicted and unpredicted, laying strong theoretical groundwork for future studies. Although the filter reversal was an unexpected finding and not the main emphasis of this article, it was present in all of our participants, and such a robust finding begs speculation about why/how such a reversal could occur. One possibility is that the reversal effect may be a result of conditioning participants to switch between opposing control settings. Over the course of the experiment, participants alternated between only two goal states: attend-faces and attend-houses. Under these conditions, we speculate that when an observer loses control over the goal-consistent filter (i.e., attend-faces), they may automatically revert to the alternative goal (i.e., attend- houses). An intriguing question for future study would be to evaluate the nature of filter disruption in a task requiring more than a binary attend Category A/ignore Category B setting, for example, if more than two catego- ries and/or possible attentional settings were involved. 1530 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 34, Number 8 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . e d u / j / o c n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / 3 4 8 1 5 2 1 2 0 3 3 1 6 5 / / j o c n _ a _ 0 1 8 7 0 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Although the current data do not allow for more than speculation about what is causing the reversal, they do allow us to rule out at least one alternative explanation. Specifically, the reversal does not seem to be an incidental consequence of adaptation because of attending the same category over a several minute block of trials. Our explor- atory block phase analysis argues strongly against this: If the filter reversal were because of adaptation, the reversal should be more evident in the second half of a block than the first half. This is the opposite of what we found: The filter was disrupted more severely (inducing the reversal) in the first half of a block. Interestingly, this finding from the block phase analysis suggests that filter disruption is weaker in the second half of a block relative to the first half and that, over the course of a block, participants regain some control over the filter on distractor-present trials. Intriguingly, although the filter disruption in PPA and FFA was less severe in the second half of a block, our rTPJ analysis did not show the same reduction: rTPJ activation was significantly stronger on distractor-present relative to distractor-absent trials (as expected from prior studies; Downar et al., 2001), and the magnitude of this effect remained constant through- out the block. As such, it appears that spatial attentional capture was strong for the duration of the block, but its consequences—to both attentional filtering and, to a lesser extent, RTs—were mitigated over time. This is notable given recent interest in learned distractor suppression—more specifically, the finding that the effects of distractors can be attenuated with increased exposure ( Won & Geng, 2020) and the debate over proac- tive versus reactive suppression (see Chelazzi et al., 2019, for a review). Given the ability to simultaneously measure rTPJ/ VAN activation, a neural filtering index in object- processing areas, and behavioral RT, the paradigm intro- duced here may be a useful future tool in examining topics related to distractor habituation and other open questions about attentional capture, contributing to our growing knowledge of the broader consequences of attentional capture and distraction. Open Practices Statement The experiment reported here was not formally preregis- tered, but the design and analysis plan were proposed before data collection as part of a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada postdoctoral fellowship grant by B. D. Deidentified data are available on OSF via the link here. Acknowledgments This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R01-EY025648) and the National Science Foundation (NSF 1848939) to J. G. and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada postdoctoral fellowship to B. D. Reprint requests should be sent to Blaire Dube, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, or via e-mail: dube.25@osu.edu. Author Contributions Blaire Dube: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Writing—Original draft; Writing—Review & editing. Lasyapriya Pidaparthi: Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Project adminis- tration; Writing—Original draft; Writing—Review & edit- ing. Julie D. Golomb: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Writing—Original draft; Writing—Review & editing. Funding Information Blaire Dube, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (htt ps://dx.doi.org /10.1 303 9 /501100000038), grant number: postdoctoral fellowship. Julie D. Golomb, National Science Foundation (https:// dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000001), grant number: NSF 1848939; National Institutes of Health (https://dx.doi.org /10.13039/100000002), grant number: R01-EY025648. Diversity in Citation Practices Retrospective analysis of the citations in every article pub- lished in this journal from 2010 to 2021 reveals a persistent pattern of gender imbalance: Although the proportions of authorship teams (categorized by estimated gender identification of first author/last author) publishing in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience ( JoCN) during this period were M(an)/M = .407, W(oman)/M = .32, M/ W = .115, and W/ W = .159, the comparable proportions for the articles that these authorship teams cited were M/M = .549, W/M = .257, M/ W = .109, and W/ W = .085 (Postle and Fulvio, JoCN, 34:1, pp. 1–3). Consequently, JoCN encourages all authors to consider gender balance explicitly when selecting which articles to cite and gives them the opportunity to report their article’s gender cita- tion balance. REFERENCES Bacigalupo, F., & Luck, S. J. (2019). Lateralized suppression of alpha-band EEG activity as a mechanism of target processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 39, 900–917. https://doi.org/10 .1523/JNEUROSCI.0183-18.2018, PubMed: 30523067 Baldauf, D., & Desimone, R. (2014). Neural mechanisms of object-based attention. Science, 344, 424–427. https://doi.org /10.1126/science.1247003, PubMed: 24763592 Bonetti, F., & Turatto, M. (2019). Habituation of oculomotor capture by sudden onsets: Stimulus specificity, spontaneous recovery and dishabituation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45, Dube, Pidaparthi, and Golomb 1531 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . e d u / j / o c n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / 3 4 8 1 5 2 1 2 0 3 3 1 6 5 / / j o c n _ a _ 0 1 8 7 0 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 264–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000605, PubMed: 30570321 Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436. https://doi.org/10.1163 /156856897X00357, PubMed: 9176952 Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97, 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.4 .523, PubMed: 2247540 Chelazzi, L., Marini, F., Pascucci, D., & Turatto, M. (2019). Getting rid of visual distractors: The why, when, how, and where. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 135–147. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.02.004, PubMed: 30856512 Chen, J., Leber, A. B., & Golomb, J. D. (2019). Attentional capture alters feature perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45, 1443–1454. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000681, PubMed: 31464467 Corbetta, M., Kincade, J. M., Ollinger, J. M., Mcavoy, M. P., & Gordon, L. (2000). Voluntary orienting is dissociated from target detection in human posterior parietal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 521. https://doi.org/10.1038/73009 Corbetta, M., Patel, G., & Shulman, G. L. (2008). The reorienting system of the human brain: From environment to theory of mind. Neuron, 58, 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron .2008.04.017, PubMed: 18466742 Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. S. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195 .001205, PubMed: 7605061 Downar, J., Crawley, A. P., Mikulis, D. J., & Davis, K. D. (2001). The effect of task relevance on the cortical response to changes in visual and auditory stimuli: An event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage, 14, 1256–1267. https://doi.org/10.1006 /nimg.2001.0946, PubMed: 11707082 Dube, B., & Golomb, J. D. (2021). Perceptual distraction causes visual memory encoding intrusions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 28, 1592–1600. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423 -021-01937-6, PubMed: 34027621 Epstein, R., & Kanwisher, N. (1998). A cortical representation the local visual environment. Nature, 392, 598–601. https:// doi.org/10.1038/33402, PubMed: 9560155 Esterman, M., Tamber-Rosenau, B. J., Chiu, Y. C., & Yantis, S. (2010). Avoiding non-independence in fMRI data analysis: Leave one subject out. Neuroimage, 50, 572–576. https://doi .org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.092, PubMed: 20006712 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, 1030–1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1030, PubMed: 1431742 Golomb, J. D., & Kanwisher, N. (2012). Higher level visual cortex represents retinotopic, not spatiotopic, object location. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 2794–2810. https://doi.org/10 .1093/cercor/bhr357, PubMed: 22190434 Hampshire, A., Duncan, J., & Owen, A. M. (2007). Selective tuning of the blood oxygenation level-dependent response during simple target detection dissociates human frontoparietal subregions. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 6219–6223. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0851-07 .2007, PubMed: 17553994 Hemond, C. C., Kanwisher, N. G., & Op de Beeck, H. P. (2007). A preference for contralateral stimuli in human object- and face-selective cortex. PLoS One, 2, 3–7. https://doi.org/10 .1371/journal.pone.0000574, PubMed: 17593973 Henderson, J. M. (2003). Human gaze control during real-world scene perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 498–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.006, PubMed: 14585447 Hoffman, J. E., & Nelson, B. (1981). Spatial selectivity in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 283–290. https://doi .org/10.3758/BF03214284, PubMed: 7322804 Hsieh, P. J., Colas, J. T., & Kanwisher, N. G. (2012). Pre-stimulus pattern of activity in the fusiform face area predicts face percepts during binocular rivalry. Neuropsychologia, 50, 522–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09 .019, PubMed: 21952195 Hu, S., Bu, Y., Song, Y., Zhen, Z., & Liu, J. (2009). Dissociation of attention and intention in human posterior parietal cortex: An fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 2083–2091. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06757.x, PubMed: 19453626 Indovina, I., & Macaluso, E. (2007). Dissociation of stimulus relevance and saliency factors during shifts of visuospatial attention. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 1701–1711. https://doi.org/10 .1093/cercor/bhl081, PubMed: 17003078 Jonides, J., & Irwin, D. E. (1981). Capturing attention. Cognition, 10, 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/13239-002 Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 4302–4311. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-11-04302 .1997, PubMed: 9151747 Liesefeld, H. R., Liesefeld, A. M., Töllner, T., & Müller, H. J. (2017). Attentional capture in visual search: Capture and post-capture dynamics revealed by EEG. Neuroimage, 156, 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.05.016, PubMed: 28502842 Liu, T., & Hou, Y. (2011). Global feature-based attention to orientation. Journal of Vision, 11, 1–8. https://doi.org/10 .1167/11.10.1, PubMed: 21900371 Liu, T., & Mance, I. (2011). Constant spread of feature-based attention across the visual field. Vision Research, 51, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.09.023, PubMed: 20887745 Luck, S. J., & Hillyard, S. A. (1994). Spatial filtering during visual search: Evidence from human electrophysiology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1000–1014. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096 -1523.20.5.1000, PubMed: 7964526 Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1990). Response bias: Characteristics of detection theory, threshold theory, and “nonparametric” indexes. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.401 Mccarthy, G., Puce, A., Gore, J. C., & Truett, A. (1997). Face- specific processing in the human fusiform gyms. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 605–610. https://doi.org/10.1162 /jocn.1997.9.5.605, PubMed: 23965119 Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64. https://doi.org/10.20982 /tqmp.04.2.p061 Nako, R., Wu, R., & Eimer, M. (2014). Rapid guidance of visual search by object categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033228, PubMed: 23796065 Naselaris, T., Allen, E., & Kay, K. (2021). Extensive sampling for complete models of individual brains. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 40, 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .cobeha.2020.12.008 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . e d u / j / o c n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / 3 4 8 1 5 2 1 2 0 3 3 1 6 5 / / j o c n _ a _ 0 1 8 7 0 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Natale, E., Marzi, C. A., & Macaluso, E. (2010). Right temporal–parietal junction engagement during spatial reorienting does not depend on strategic attention control. Neuropsychologia, 48, 1160–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .neuropsychologia.2009.11.012, PubMed: 19932706 O’Craven, K. M., & Kanwisher, N. (2000). Mental imagery of faces and places activates corresponding stimulus-specific 1532 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 34, Number 8 brain regions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1162/08989290051137549, PubMed: 11177421 Olivers, C. N. L., Meijer, F., & Theeuwes, J. (2006). Feature- based memory-driven attentional capture: Visual working memory content affects visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1243–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096 -1523.32.5.1243, PubMed: 17002535 Peters, J. C., Roelfsema, P. R., & Goebel, R. (2012). Task- relevant and accessory items in working memory have opposite effects on activity in extrastriate cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 17003–17011. https://doi.org/10.1523 /JNEUROSCI.0591-12.2012, PubMed: 23175851 Remington, R. W., Johnston, J. C., & Yantis, S. (1992). Involuntary attentional capture by abrupt onsets. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 279–290. https://doi.org/10.3758 /BF03212254, PubMed: 1561053 Saenz, M., Buracas, G. T., & Boynton, G. M. (2002). Global effects of feature-based attention in human visual cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 631–632. https://doi.org/10.1038 /nn876, PubMed: 12068304 Sàenz, M., Buraĉas, G. T., & Boynton, G. M. (2003). Global feature-based attention for motion and color. Vision Research, 43, 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989 (02)00595-3, PubMed: 12604099 Serences, J. T., & Boynton, G. M. (2007). Feature-based attentional modulations in the absence of direct visual stimulation. Neuron, 55, 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .neuron.2007.06.015, PubMed: 17640530 Serences, J. T., Schwarzbach, J., Courtney, S. M., Golay, X., & Yantis, S. (2004). Control of object-based attention in human cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 14, 1346–1357. https://doi.org/10 .1093/cercor/bhh095, PubMed: 15166105 Serences, J. T., Shomstein, S., Leber, A. B., Golay, X., Egeth, H. E., & Yantis, S. (2005). Coordination of voluntary and stimulus-driven attentional control in human cortex. Psychological Science, 16, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j .0956-7976.2005.00791.x, PubMed: 15686577 Shulman, G. L., Astafiev, S. V., Franke, D., Pope, D. L. W., Snyder, A. Z., McAvoy, M. P., et al. (2009). Interaction of stimulus-driven reorienting and expectation in ventral and dorsal frontoparietal and basal ganglia-cortical networks. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 4392–4407. https://doi.org/10 .1523/JNEUROSCI.5609-08.2009, PubMed: 19357267 Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 3, 37–149. https://doi.org/10.3758 /BF03207704, PubMed: 10495845 Stein, T., & Peelen, M. V. (2017). Object detection in natural scenes: Independent effects of spatial and category-based attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 738–752. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1279-8, PubMed: 28138945 Talairach, J., & Tournoux, P. (1988). Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain. 3-Dimensional proportional system: An approach to cerebral imaging. New York: Thieme. Theeuwes, J., & Burger, R. (1998). Attentional control during visual search: The effect of irrelevant singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1342–1353. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096 -1523.24.5.1342, PubMed: 9778827 Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., & Irwin, D. E. (1998). Our eyes do not always go where we want them to go: Capture of the eyes by new objects. Psychological Science, 9, 379–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00071 Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., Irwin, D. E., & Zelinsky, G. J. (1999). Influence of attentional capture on oculomotor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1595–1608. https://doi.org /10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1595, PubMed: 10641312 Tong, F., Nakayama, K., Vaughan, J. T., & Kanwisher, N. (1998). Binocular rivalry and visual awareness in human extrastriate cortex. Neuron, 21, 753–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896 -6273(00)80592-9, PubMed: 9808462 Treue, S., & Martínez Trujillo, J. C. (1999). Feature-based attention influences motion processing gain in macaque visual cortex. Nature, 399, 575–579. https://doi.org/10.1038 /21176, PubMed: 10376597 Turatto, M., Bonetti, F., & Pascucci, D. (2018). Filtering visual onsets via habituation: A context-specific long-term memory of irrelevant stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 1028–1034. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1320-x, PubMed: 28547537 Turk-Browne, N. B., Norman-Haignere, S. V., & Mccarthy, G. (2010). Face-specific resting functional connectivity between the fusiform gyrus and posterior superior temporal sulcus. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 1–15. https://doi.org /10.3389/fnhum.2010.00176, PubMed: 21151362 Wang, B., van Driel, J., Ort, E., & Theeuwes, J. (2019). Anticipatory distractor suppression elicited by statistical regularities in visual search. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31, 1535–1548. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a _01433, PubMed: 31180265 White, A. L., & Carrasco, M. (2011). Feature-based attention involuntarily and simultaneously improves visual performance across locations. Journal of Vision, 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.6.15, PubMed: 21602553 Wojciulik, E., Kanwisher, N., & Driver, J. (1998). Covert visual attention modulates face-specific activity in the human fusiform gyrus: fMRI study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 79, 1574–1578. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1998.79.3.1574, PubMed: 9497433 Won, B. Y., & Geng, J. J. (2020). Passive exposure attenuates distraction during visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 1987–1995. https://doi.org/10.1037 /xge0000760, PubMed: 32250138 Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 601–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523 .10.5.601, PubMed: 6238122 Yi, D. J., Kelley, T. A., Marois, R., & Chun, M. M. (2006). Attentional modulation of repetition attenuation is anatomically dissociable for scenes and faces. Brain Research, 1080, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres .2006.01.090, PubMed: 16507300 Zhang, W., & Luck, S. J. (2009). Feature-based attention modulates feedforward visual processing. Nature Neuroscience, 12, 24–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2223, PubMed: 19029890 Dube, Pidaparthi, and Golomb 1533 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . e d u / j / o c n a r t i c e - p d l f / / / 3 4 8 1 5 2 1 2 0 3 3 1 6 5 / / j o c n _ a _ 0 1 8 7 0 p d . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3

Scarica il pdf