Attention Perception & PsychophysicsNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
Distractor-response binding influences visual search
Fredrik AllenmarkiD, Hao Yu, Hermann J. MülleriD, Zhuanghua ShiiD, Christian FringsiD
Abstract
Intertrial priming effects in visual search and action control suggest the involvement of binding and retrieval processes. However, the role of distractor-response binding (DRB) in visual search has been largely overlooked, and the specific processing stage within the functional architecture of attentional guidance where the DRB occurs remains unclear. To address these gaps, we implemented two search tasks, where participants responded based on a separate feature from the one defining the target. We kept the target dimension consistent across trials while varying the color and shape of the distractor. Moreover, we either repeated or randomized the target position in different sessions. Our results revealed a pronounced response priming, a difference between trials where the response changed vs. repeated: they were stronger when distractor features or the target position were repeated than they varied. Furthermore, the distractor feature priming, a difference between the distractor features repetition and switch, was contingent on the target position, suggesting that DRB likely operates at late stages of target identification and response selection. These insights affirm the presence of DRB during visual search and support the framework of binding and retrieval in action control as a basis for observed intertrial priming effects related to distractor features. Public significance statementThis study investigated inter-trial effects within visual search tasks and uncovered significant evidence for the role of distractor-response binding. This phenomenon involves linking a response in a given trial to the perceptual features (e.g. color and shape) of non-target items. Crucially, the study revealed that this distractor-response binding effect depends on whether the target location is repeated nearly repeated, suggesting that the retrieval of a previous response occurs at the later stages of target identification or response selection, even though non-target features likely are identified at an earlier stage.
- Citations
- 6
- FWCI
- 2.84
- Field percentile
- top 11%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Expected Distractor Context Biases the Attentional Template for Target Shapes
Maëlle Lerebourg, Floris P. de Lange, Marius V. Peelen·Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformancePeer-reviewed·Jul 6, 2023
- History modulates early sensory processing of salient distractors
Kirsten C. S. Adam, John T. Serences·Journal of NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Jul 30, 2021
- Probability cueing of singleton-distractor locations in visual search: priority-map- or dimension-based inhibition?
Bei Zhang, Fredrik Allenmark, … Hermann J. Müller·Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformancePeer-reviewed·May 30, 2019
- Inter-trial effects in visual pop-out search: Factorial comparison of Bayesian updating models
Fredrik Allenmark, Hermann J. Müller, Zhuanghua Shi·PLoS Computational BiologyPeer-reviewed·Jul 30, 2018
- Learning to suppress likely distractor locations in visual search is driven by the local distractor frequency
Fredrik Allenmark, Bei Zhang, … Hermann J. Müller·Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformancePeer-reviewed·Sep 15, 2022
- Contextual associations of real-world objects guide attention in visual search
Lu-Chun Yeh, Belma Seferovic, … DANIEL H. KAISER·bioRxiv·Jun 29, 2026