1. 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

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

3. 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

4. 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

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

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

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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

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

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

13. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events13

14. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events14

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

16. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events16

17. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events17

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

19. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events19

20. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events20

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

22. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events22

23. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events23

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

25. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events25

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

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.
IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events 27

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 {+1, +2, +2, -1, +1, ..., -1, -1, +2, -2, ...}
20 operations in a row. Trials last one minute. 30 trials. 28

29. 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

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

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

32. 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

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

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

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. 35

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

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

40. 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 ms
500 ms ms ms
500 ms
3000 ms 40

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

42. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events42

43. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events43

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

45. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events45

46. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events46

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

48. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events48

49. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events49

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

51. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events51

52. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events52

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

54. IB research suggests we might be blind to unexpected events54

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

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

57. 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

58. 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

59. 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

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

61. 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

62. Thank you.