Abstract:Converging evidence recently put forward the notion that dedicated neurocognitive mechanisms do exist for the suppression of salient, but irrelevant distractors. Along this line, it is plausible to hypothesize that, in appropriate contexts, experience-dependent forms of attentional learning might selectively induce plastic changes within this dedicated circuitry, thus allowing an independent shaping of priorities at the service of attentional filtering. Conversely, previous work suggested that statistical learning (SL) of both target and distractor spatial probability distributions converge in adjusting only the overall attentional priority of locations: in fact, in the presence of an independent manipulation, either related to the target or to the distractor only, SL induces indirect effects (e.g., changes in filtering efficiency due to an uneven distribution of targets), suggesting that SL-induced plastic changes affect a shared neural substrate. Here we tested whether, when (conflicting) target- and distractor-related manipulations are concurrently applied to the very same locations, dedicated mechanisms might support the selective encoding of spatial priority in relation to the specific attentional operation involved. In three related experiments, human healthy participants discriminated the direction of a target arrow, while ignoring a salient distractor, if present; both target and distractor spatial probability distributions were concurrently manipulated in relation to each single location. Critically, the selection bias produced by the target-related SL was marginally reduced by an adverse distractor contingency, and the suppression bias generated by the distractor-related SL was erased, or even reversed, by an adverse target contingency. Our results suggest that even conflicting target- and distractor-related SL manipulations result in the adjustment of a unique spatial priority computation, likely because the process directly relies on direct plastic alterations of shared spatial priority map(s).

Further evidence for the role of temporal contiguity as a determinant of overshadowing

Emotional Overshadowing: Pleasant and Unpleasant Cues Overshadow Neutral Cues in Human Associative Learning

Increasing previous but not concurrent extinction attenuates the "extinction makes acquisition context specific" effect in human predictive learning.

Stimulus salience determines defensive behaviors elicited by aversively conditioned serial compound auditory stimuli

Auditory aversive generalization learning prompts threat-specific changes in alpha-band activity

Temporal attention selectively enhances target features

The interplay between audiovisual temporal synchrony and semantic congruency in the cross-modal boost of the visual target discrimination during the attentional blink

Electrophysiological Evidence of Crossmodal Correspondence Between Auditory Pitch and Visual Elevation Affecting Inhibition of Return.

Training Reveals The Sources Of Stroop And Flanker Interference Effects

Congruency sequence effects and previous response times: conflict adaptation or temporal learning?

Sequential grouping modulates the effect of non-simultaneous masking on auditory intensity resolution

Statistical learning of target and distractor spatial probability shape a common attentional priority computation

Target voice probability influences enhancement in auditory selective attention

Anticipating multisensory environments: Evidence for a supra-modal predictive system

Attribute Capture Underlying the Precedence Effect in Rats.

Contributions of temporal and spatial masking signals in perception of sequential visual events

Sensory Dominance Depends on Locus of Attentional Selection: Cross-Modal Distraction at Different Levels of Information Processing

The role of selective attention in implicit learning: evidence for a contextual cueing effect of task-irrelevant features

Contextual cueing in preview search

Intra- and Cross-Modal Cuing of Visual Spatial Attention: the Hyper-Effective Simultaneous Auditory Peripheral Cues

Signal detection analysis of contingency assessment: Associative interference and nonreinforcement impact cue-outcome contingency sensitivity, whereas cue density affects bias.