Neural mechanisms of learned suppression uncovered by probing the hidden attentional priority map

Huang, Changrun; van Moorselaar, Dirk; Foster, Joshua; Donk, Mieke; Theeuwes, Jan · 2025 · DOAJ

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.98304

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the neural mechanisms underlying learned suppression of irrelevant visual distractors, specifically addressing whether this suppression is proactive (applied before attention is directed to the distractor) or reactive (occurring after initial attentional selection). While behavioral evidence suggests that observers learn to suppress locations where distractors frequently appear, the timing and nature of this suppression remain debated. The authors utilized a "pinging" technique combined with electroencephalography (EEG) to probe the hidden attentional priority map prior to the onset of a search display. The experimental design embedded an additional singleton visual search task within a spatial working memory maintenance period. Participants identified a shape target while ignoring an irrelevant color singleton, which appeared more frequently at a specific "high-probability" location. To reveal the attentional priority map, participants continuously memorized a spatial cue. A neutral placeholder display was presented after the memory cue but before the search display, serving as a visual ping to probe the distribution of attention. The authors employed an inverted encoding model to reconstruct channel tuning functions (CTFs) from alpha-band EEG power, allowing for a time-resolved analysis of how the learned distractor regularity modulated the top-down attentional signal associated with the memorized location. Behavioral results confirmed that participants successfully learned to suppress the high-probability location, evidenced by faster and more accurate responses when the distractor appeared there, and slower responses when the target appeared at that location. This suppression effect exhibited a spatial gradient centered on the high-probability location. Crucially, the neural analysis of the EEG data revealed that the placeholder ping revived the spatial tuning profile of the memorized location. Contrary to the proactive suppression hypothesis, which predicted attenuated tuning at the suppressed location, the reconstructed CTFs showed the most pronounced tuning at the high-probability distractor location. Furthermore, a reliable spatial gradient of increased selectivity was centered on this location immediately following the placeholder onset. These findings indicate that learned distractor suppression is not implemented proactively as a preemptive inhibition of the priority map. Instead, the data support a reactive suppression account, wherein the to-be-suppressed location is initially attended or enhanced before suppression occurs. The study demonstrates that attentional selection is a prerequisite for suppression, challenging previous interpretations that relied solely on behavioral measures. By using the pinging technique to access activity-silent representations, the authors provide direct neural evidence that the mechanism of learned suppression involves an initial phase of spatial selection followed by rapid disengagement, rather than a proactive reduction of attentional weights.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• attention selective divided