Alejandro Lleras & Simona Buetti Where do the eyes go when you think? They stay away from visually salient information. Alejandro Lleras & Simona Buetti University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Attention and distraction Visual attention must have two functions: Attention guides us towards our interests (1), while actively protecting us from distractor interference (2).

Attention guides The guiding function of attention has received the most interest in the literature. (FIT, Guided Search, salience models of visual attention). Distractors are target-like things that compete for attention. This is a requirement construct

Attention protects from distraction… Distractors Task-related distractors Visual search Flanker interference Attentional capture Distractors Processed Task-unrelated distractors Inattentional Blindness Memory search Conversation Distractors Not Processed or actively avoided But there are many many cases in which distractors are truly unrelated to the cognitive or visual task at hand. Eye-closing when searching memory (e.g., Glenberg, Schroeder & Robertson, 1998; Doherty-Sneddon & Phelps, 2005; Einstein et al., 2002). Gaze-aversion/turn taking in conversation (e.g., Beattie, 1981; Ehrlichman, 1981; Doherty-Sneddon et al., 2002). Second line of work suggests that when distractors are not related to the task, they undergo little attentive processing

Criticism of James, Stout, Yerkes, Proposal: Attention system is wired to minimize distraction while the mind is engaged in difficult tasks.

Bigger flanker effect with memory load Is this obvious? Cognitive Load Theory of Lavie & colleagues proposes the opposite: increased distractibility! x 1 ? 1 4 5 9 3 2 I PROPOSE THAT NOTHING CAN BE LEARNED ABUOT DISTRACTIBILITY WITH THIS SET UP Bigger flanker effect with memory load

Let’s test it with task-unrelated distractors. When trying to concentrate for a substantial period of time, will we be more or less sensitive to distracting information? 7

Possible outcomes... Load theory (Lavie and colleagues) predicts increased sensitivity to distraction, if ... Perceptual Load is low : opportunity for processing distractors Cognitive Load is high: lack of control over filtering. 8

Possible outcomes... Attention as a “minimizer” of distraction would predict: -> active blocking of distracting events 9

Will participants look at the images? So what did we do? Ongoing math task, while images appear around display. Will participants look at the images? 10

Task: Ongoing math task, plus distracting images presented around display +1 -2 123 +1 -2 … 1500 ms 1500 ms 700+200ms ~ 650 ms 500 ms 1800 + 200 ms 700+200 ms ~ 650 ms 500 ms 3000 ms 11

135 IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 12

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 13

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 14

+ 4 +4 IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 15

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 16

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 17

+ 5 IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 18

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 19

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 20

- 4 IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 21

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 22

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 23

+ 5 IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 24

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 25

? IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 26

Design notes: When an image appeared, it was the only event in the display (presumably low perceptual load). Two levels of Cognitive Load: - High group: perform all operations. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 27

Design notes: When an image appeared, it was the only event in the display (presumably low perceptual load). Two levels of Cognitive Load: - High group: perform all operations. - Low group: ONLY keep track of repetitions of operations. {+1, +2, +2, -1, +1, ..., -1, -1, +2, -2, ...} 20 operations in a row. Trials last one minute. 30 trials. 28

Design notes: When an image appeared, it was the only event in the display (presumably low perceptual load). Two levels of Cognitive Load: - High group: perform all operations - Low group: ONLY keep track of repetitions of operations. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events Events satisfy requirements for both Lavie’s Cognitive Load theory and Inattentional Blindness. 29

Classification of regards on blank previous image center Four possible image locations. New image 30

Results: Low Load IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 31

Results: Low Load IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events Everything works as expected… Under low load the eyes roam free from irrelevant image to irrelevant image 32

(1) Significant increase of regards to NOTHING…. Results: High Load (1) Significant increase of regards to NOTHING…. 33

Results: High Load Significant increase of regards to NOTHING…. Those regards are insensitive to image onset. 34

Results: High Load Significant increase of regards to NOTHING…. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events Significant increase of regards to NOTHING…. Those regards are insensitive to image onset. 35

Results: High Load Significant increase of regards to NOTHING…. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events Significant increase of regards to NOTHING…. Those regards are insensitive to image onset. Only 45% of regards to images. 36

Discussion: Cognitive Load: Increases avoidance regards: increased looks at nothing. Substantial decreases capture (and overall regards) to very salient images. In the absence of any visual instruction. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 37

Question: When trying to concentrate for a substantial period of time, will we be more or less sensitive to distracting information? IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events, Answer: MUCH LESS SENSITIVE. 38

Question: What if participants had a visually oriented task? => a reason to respond to visual events. An extreme form of Contingent Capture??? 39

Task: Ongoing math task, while images appear around display. … 123 +1 -2 … IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 1500 ms 1500 ms 700+200ms 500 ms 1800 + 200 ms 700+200 ms 500 ms 3000 ms 40

153 IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 41

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 42

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 43

- 2 IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 44

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 45

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 46

+5 IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 47

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 48

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 49

-4 IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 50

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 51

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 52

- 1 IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 53

IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 54

? IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 55

Results IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 56

Results Vast increase of regards to center of screen. Remember, there is NOTHING at the CENTER location for 2.5 out of every 3 seconds! Vast increase of regards to center of screen. Strong insensitivity to image onset 57

Results Vast increase of regards to center of screen. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events Vast increase of regards to center of screen. Strong insensitivity to image onset Only 20% of regards ever go to images. 58

Discussion When observers have a visually oriented task and are under high cognitive load, there is an even stronger avoidance of salient images. Cognitive Load theory must be fundamentally wrong… Does not apply at all to task-unrelated distractors, and it is likely a failure of selection. Inattentional Blindness might be a strong form of active distractor avoidance with task-unrelated distractors IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 59

Conclusion: Results appear consistent with an active avoidance of distraction account. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 60

Conclusion: When mentally busy, our attention system acts to minimize distractibility. And this is consistent with gaze aversion in conversation and eye-closing during memory search 61

Thank you.