Selective inhibition of distracting input

MaryAnn P Noonan; Ben M Crittenden; Ole Jensen; Mark G Stokes

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2017.10.010

Selective inhibition of distracting input

MaryAnn P Noonan, Ben M Crittenden, Ole Jensen, Mark G Stokes

Psychology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Abstract

We review a series of studies exploring distractor suppression. It is often assumed that preparatory distractor suppression is controlled via top-down mechanisms of attention akin to those that prepare brain areas for target enhancement. Here, we consider two alternative mechanisms: secondary inhibition and expectation suppression within a predictive coding framework. We draw on behavioural studies, evidence from neuroimaging and some animal studies. We conclude that there is very limited evidence for selective top-down control of preparatory inhibition. By contrast, we argue that distractor suppression often relies secondary inhibition of non-target items (relatively non-selective inhibition) and on statistical regularities of the environment, learned through direct experience.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	36-47
Number of pages	12
Journal	Behavioural Brain Research
Volume	355
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2017.10.010
Publication status	Published - 14 Dec 2018

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Animals
Attention/physiology
Brain/physiology
Humans
Inhibition, Psychological

Access to Document

10.1016/j.bbr.2017.10.010

Cite this

@article{8756ba388e5e413f93f684405c77cba6,

title = "Selective inhibition of distracting input",

abstract = "We review a series of studies exploring distractor suppression. It is often assumed that preparatory distractor suppression is controlled via top-down mechanisms of attention akin to those that prepare brain areas for target enhancement. Here, we consider two alternative mechanisms: secondary inhibition and expectation suppression within a predictive coding framework. We draw on behavioural studies, evidence from neuroimaging and some animal studies. We conclude that there is very limited evidence for selective top-down control of preparatory inhibition. By contrast, we argue that distractor suppression often relies secondary inhibition of non-target items (relatively non-selective inhibition) and on statistical regularities of the environment, learned through direct experience.",

keywords = "Animals, Attention/physiology, Brain/physiology, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological",

author = "Noonan, {MaryAnn P} and Crittenden, {Ben M} and Ole Jensen and Stokes, {Mark G}",

year = "2018",

month = dec,

day = "14",

doi = "10.1016/j.bbr.2017.10.010",

language = "English",

volume = "355",

pages = "36--47",

journal = "Behavioural Brain Research",

issn = "0166-4328",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Selective inhibition of distracting input

AU - Noonan, MaryAnn P

AU - Crittenden, Ben M

AU - Jensen, Ole

AU - Stokes, Mark G

PY - 2018/12/14

Y1 - 2018/12/14

N2 - We review a series of studies exploring distractor suppression. It is often assumed that preparatory distractor suppression is controlled via top-down mechanisms of attention akin to those that prepare brain areas for target enhancement. Here, we consider two alternative mechanisms: secondary inhibition and expectation suppression within a predictive coding framework. We draw on behavioural studies, evidence from neuroimaging and some animal studies. We conclude that there is very limited evidence for selective top-down control of preparatory inhibition. By contrast, we argue that distractor suppression often relies secondary inhibition of non-target items (relatively non-selective inhibition) and on statistical regularities of the environment, learned through direct experience.

AB - We review a series of studies exploring distractor suppression. It is often assumed that preparatory distractor suppression is controlled via top-down mechanisms of attention akin to those that prepare brain areas for target enhancement. Here, we consider two alternative mechanisms: secondary inhibition and expectation suppression within a predictive coding framework. We draw on behavioural studies, evidence from neuroimaging and some animal studies. We conclude that there is very limited evidence for selective top-down control of preparatory inhibition. By contrast, we argue that distractor suppression often relies secondary inhibition of non-target items (relatively non-selective inhibition) and on statistical regularities of the environment, learned through direct experience.

KW - Animals

KW - Attention/physiology

KW - Brain/physiology

KW - Humans

KW - Inhibition, Psychological

U2 - 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.10.010

DO - 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.10.010

M3 - Review article

C2 - 29042157

SN - 0166-4328

VL - 355

SP - 36

EP - 47

JO - Behavioural Brain Research

JF - Behavioural Brain Research

ER -