Why are some individuals better at using negative attentional templates to suppress distractors? Exploration of interindividual differences in cognitive control efficiency.
{"title":"Why are some individuals better at using negative attentional templates to suppress distractors? Exploration of interindividual differences in cognitive control efficiency.","authors":"Matthieu Chidharom, Nancy B Carlisle","doi":"10.1037/xhp0001214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Negative templates are based on foreknowledge of distractor features and can lead to more efficient visual search at the group level. However, large individual differences exist in the size of benefits induced by negative cues. The cognitive factors underlying these interindividual differences remain unknown. Previous research has suggested higher engagement of proactive control for negative templates compared to positive templates. We thus hypothesized that interindividual differences in proactive control efficiency may explain the large variability in negative cue benefits. A large data set made up of data from two previously published studies was reanalyzed (<i>N</i> = 139), with eye movements recorded in 36 participants. Individual proactive control efficiency was measured through reaction time (RT) variability. Participants with higher proactive control efficiency exhibited larger benefits after negative cues across two critical measures: Individuals with higher proactive control showed larger RT benefits following negative compared to neutral cues; similarly, individuals with higher proactive control exhibited lower first saccades to cued distractor items. No such relationship was observed for positive cues. Our results confirmed the existence of large interindividual differences in the benefits induced by negative attentional templates. Critically, we show that proactive control drives these interindividual differences in negative template use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Negative templates are based on foreknowledge of distractor features and can lead to more efficient visual search at the group level. However, large individual differences exist in the size of benefits induced by negative cues. The cognitive factors underlying these interindividual differences remain unknown. Previous research has suggested higher engagement of proactive control for negative templates compared to positive templates. We thus hypothesized that interindividual differences in proactive control efficiency may explain the large variability in negative cue benefits. A large data set made up of data from two previously published studies was reanalyzed (N = 139), with eye movements recorded in 36 participants. Individual proactive control efficiency was measured through reaction time (RT) variability. Participants with higher proactive control efficiency exhibited larger benefits after negative cues across two critical measures: Individuals with higher proactive control showed larger RT benefits following negative compared to neutral cues; similarly, individuals with higher proactive control exhibited lower first saccades to cued distractor items. No such relationship was observed for positive cues. Our results confirmed the existence of large interindividual differences in the benefits induced by negative attentional templates. Critically, we show that proactive control drives these interindividual differences in negative template use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).