The illusion of control: Sequential dependencies underlie contingent attentional capture

Huffman, Greg; Antinucci, Victoria M.; Pratt, Jay · 2018 · Crossref

DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1422-5

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 whether the "contingent capture" effect in visual attention—where cues matching a target’s features capture attention while mismatching cues do not—is driven by top-down control or by sequential dependencies between cue and target processing. The authors challenge the prevailing view that attentional capture is strictly governed by an attentional control set (ACS). Instead, they propose that performance differences in standard cueing paradigms may arise from processing costs associated with feature mismatches between cues and targets, rather than the successful suppression of irrelevant cues. To test this, the researchers employed a modified cueing paradigm that included a secondary memory probe task, hypothesized to be resilient to sequential dependency effects that typically influence response times (RTs). The research consisted of two experiments using 18 participants each. In Experiment 1, participants searched for color-defined targets (red or green dots). In Experiment 2, they searched for onset-defined targets (white dots appearing against a gray background). Both experiments included standard search trials, where participants reported target location, and memory probe trials, where participants recalled letters presented at cue locations. This design allowed the authors to compare attentional allocation as measured by RTs (susceptible to sequential dependencies) versus memory performance (assumed to reflect pure attentional capture). In Experiment 1, RTs showed a standard contingent capture effect: cue validity effects were larger for color cues (goal-consistent) than for onset cues (goal-inconsistent). However, memory performance showed a cue validity effect that was unaffected by cue type, indicating that both cue types captured attention equally. In Experiment 2, where onsets were goal-consistent, contingent capture effects appeared in both RTs and memory performance for onset cues. Conversely, color cues (now goal-inconsistent) produced negative cue validity effects in RTs and reduced memory performance, suggesting a processing cost rather than a lack of capture. The authors conclude that sequential dependencies underlie the contingent capture effects observed in RTs. The memory probe data suggests that goal-inconsistent cues do capture attention, but their influence is masked in RT measures by object-updating costs or prediction errors resulting from feature mismatches. The findings imply an asymmetry in attentional capture, with onset cues capturing attention more strongly than color cues regardless of goal relevance. This supports a predictive processing framework, where attentional effects are driven by the visual system’s prediction errors rather than purely by top-down control sets.

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 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

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

• attention selective divided
• task switching
• inattentional change blindness