title: Evidence inhibition responds reactively to the salience of distracting information during focused attention.
abstract: Along with target amplification, distractor inhibition is regarded as a major contributor to selective attention. Some theories suggest that the strength of inhibitory processing is proportional to the salience of the distractor (i.e., inhibition reacts to the distractor intensity). Other theories suggest that the strength of inhibitory processing does not depend on the salience of the distractor (i.e., inhibition does not react to the distractor intensity). The present study aimed to elucidate the relationship between the intensity of a distractor and its subsequent inhibition during focused attention. A flanker task with a variable distractor-target stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) was used to measure both distractor interference and distractor inhibition. We manipulated the intensity of the distractor in two separate ways, by varying its distance from the target (Experiment 1) and by varying its brightness (Experiment 2). The results indicate that more intense distractors were associated with both increased interference and stronger distractor inhibition. The latter outcome provides novel support for the reactive inhibition hypothesis, which posits that inhibition reacts to the strength of distractor input, such that more salient distractors elicit stronger inhibition.
authors: Department of Psychology and Brain Health Research Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
authors: Natalie
authors: N
authors: Wyatt
authors: Liana
authors: L
authors: Machado
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D011930:Reaction Time; D011931:Reactive Inhibition; D055815:Young Adult
references: Vision Res. 2009 May;49(11):1472-80
references: 19289140
references: Exp Brain Res. 2003 Jul;151(2):272-88
references: 12739092
references: Percept Psychophys. 1994 Nov;56(5):565-74
references: 7991353
references: Exp Brain Res. 2010 Aug;205(2):235-49
references: 20644919
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013 Feb;39(1):245-56
references: 22506783
references: Psychol Aging. 2000 Sep;15(3):542-50
references: 11014716
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1999 Apr;101(2-3):129-58
references: 10344183
references: Percept Psychophys. 2002 Jan;64(1):148-62
references: 11916298
references: Percept Psychophys. 2000 Jul;62(5):969-83
references: 10997043
references: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
references: 9176952
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Oct;34(5):1165-82
references: 18823203
references: Br J Psychol. 2001 Feb;92(Pt 1):53-78
references: 11256770
references: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2004 Oct;57(7):1173-90
references: 15513242
references: Percept Psychophys. 1991 Mar;49(3):270-88
references: 2011464
references: Nat Neurosci. 2005 Aug;8(8):975-7
references: 16047021
references: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013;66(1):138-59
references: 22928521
references: J Neurophysiol. 2004 Dec;92(6):3538-45
references: 15254075
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Mar;17(3):507-17
references: 15814009
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010 Apr;36(2):286-302
references: 20364919
references: PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e20544
references: 21655232
references: Vision Res. 2004;44(13):1575-88
references: 15126066
references: J Mot Behav. 2003 Jun;35(2):119-26
references: 12711583
references: Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2008;17(2):86-90
references: 19444327
references: Psychophysiology. 1994 May;31(3):291-308
references: 8008793
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Dec;12(6):1112-9
references: 16615337
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Oct;33(5):1045-61
references: 17924806
references: Psychol Res. 2009 Mar;73(2):233-43
references: 19066945
references: Psychol Bull. 2010 Nov;136(6):975-1022
references: 21038938
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Feb;29(1):52-63
references: 12669747
references: Can J Exp Psychol. 2001 Sep;55(3):219-30
references: 11605557
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Jun;8(2):301-6
references: 11495118
references: Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Nov;117(11):2532-9
references: 17005448
references: Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(4):638-46
references: 15716153
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2011 Sep;23(9):2620-8
references: 20849233
references: Vision Res. 1999 Jan;39(1):71-86
references: 10211397
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1997 Jun;23(3):632-50
references: 9180038
references: Q J Exp Psychol A. 1995 Feb;48(1):26-40
references: 7754085
references: Mem Cognit. 1992 Nov;20(6):727-35
references: 1435275
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1991 Apr;76(2):149-63
references: 1862729
references: Nature. 1998 Nov 5;396(6706):72-5
references: 9817201
references: PLoS One. 2010 Oct 28;5(10):e13660
references: 21060888
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Oct;14(5):957-63
references: 18087966
references: Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
references: 9176953
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2003 Oct;114(2):185-210
references: 14529824
references: Percept Psychophys. 1992 Feb;51(2):145-62
references: 1549433
references: Percept Psychophys. 2001 Aug;63(6):1063-71
references: 11578050
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1985 Aug;11(4):409-30
references: 3161984
references: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003 Aug;13(4):428-32
references: 12965289
references: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2001 May;54(2):321-43
references: 11394050
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1982 Jul;50(3):253-90
references: 7124432
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Aug;32(4):885-907
references: 16846286
references: Neuropsychologia. 2009 Jun;47(7):1756-64
references: 19397871
references: Brain Cogn. 1996 Feb;30(1):20-43
references: 8811979
references: Neuroimage. 2010 Mar;50(1):277-84
references: 20026231
references: Vision Res. 2002 Jan;42(1):107-23
references: 11804636
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Jun;12(3):530-4
references: 16235641
references: Psychophysiology. 1996 Sep;33(5):555-65
references: 8854743
references: Neuron. 2003 Mar 6;37(5):853-63
references: 12628175