Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 6, 2026
12:12
Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm
Published on: May 14, 2014
Within-trial and across-trial distractor rejection mechanisms
Luca Betteto1, Matteo De Tommaso2, Massimo Turatto3
1CIMeC, Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Corso Bettini, 31, 38068, Rovereto, Italy. luca.betteto@unitn.it.
Attention, Perception & Psychophysics
|July 20, 2026
Summary
Visual attention is guided by how often distractors appear. Repeated distractors within a trial significantly reduce visual capture, suggesting distinct rejection mechanisms based on distractor repetition timing.
Area of Science:
- Cognitive Psychology
- Visual Perception
- Neuroscience
Background:
- Visual search relies on attentional mechanisms to filter irrelevant information.
- Color singleton distractors can capture attention, but this is modulated by their probability of occurrence.
- Rejection mechanisms help suppress distractor interference, especially when their location is predictable.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate color-singleton distractor rejection mechanisms.
- To examine the role of distractor repetition within a trial on attentional capture.
- To differentiate between within-trial and across-trials distractor rejection strategies.
Main Methods:
- Utilized a modified additional-singleton paradigm with four rapid consecutive displays.
- Manipulated distractor presentation: single location (40% probability) vs. repeated location (10% probability) in Experiment 1.
- Varied distractor probabilities and repetition patterns across four experiments to assess attentional capture and target processing.
Main Results:
- Contrary to expectations, repeated distractors at a location significantly attenuated attentional capture, even with lower probability.
- No target-processing impairment was observed at the repeated location where capture was eliminated.
- Target-processing impairment occurred only at higher distractor probabilities (40%) when distractors were repeated within a trial.
Conclusions:
- Suggests distinct distractor rejection mechanisms for within-trial and across-trials repetitions.
- Proposes suppression for across-trials rejection and distractor-expectation/prediction error for within-trial rejection.
- Highlights the influence of distractor repetition timing on attentional capture and processing efficiency.
