Cited by 21Visual Attention and Saliency DetectionVisual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The temporal dynamics of visual attention.

Open access
Zhang, Han, Sellers, Jacob, Lee, Taraz G., Jonides, John·2025·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Researchers have long debated how humans select relevant objects amid physically salient distractions. An increasingly popular view holds that the key to avoiding distractions lies in suppressing the attentional priority of a salient distractor. However, the precise mechanisms of distractor suppression remain elusive. Because the computation of attentional priority is a time-dependent process, distractor suppression must be understood within these temporal dynamics. In four experiments, we tracked the temporal dynamics of visual attention using a novel forced-response method, by which participants were required to express their latent attentional priority at varying processing times via saccades. We show that attention could be biased either toward or away from a salient distractor depending on the timing of observation, with these temporal dynamics varying substantially across experiments. These dynamics were explained by a computational model assuming the distractor and target priority signals arrive asynchronously in time and with different influences on saccadic behavior. The model suggests that distractor signal suppression can be achieved via a "slow" mechanism in which the distractor priority signal dictates saccadic behavior until a late-arriving priority signal overrides it, or a "fast" mechanism which directly suppresses the distractor priority signal's behavioral expression. The two mechanisms are temporally dissociable and can work collaboratively, resulting in time-dependent patterns of attentional allocation. The current work underscores the importance of considering the temporal dynamics of visual attention and provides a computational architecture for understanding the mechanisms of distractor suppression. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xge0001661

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. Adkins TJ, & Lee TG (2023). Reward Accelerates the Preparation of Goal-directed Actions under Conflict. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1– 16. 10.1162/jocn_a_02072 37847810 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Allenmark F, Zhang B, Shi Z, & Müller HJ (2022). Learning to suppress likely distractor locations in visual search is driven by the local distractor frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 48(11), 1250– 1278. 10.1037/xhp0001054 36107665 · DOI
  3. Anderson BA (2021). Time to stop calling it attentional “capture” and embrace a mechanistic understanding of attentional priority. Visual Cognition, 29(9), 537– 540. 10.1080/13506285.2021.1892894 34899025 PMC8654351 · DOI
  4. Anderson BA, Laurent PA, & Yantis S (2011). Value-driven attentional capture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(25), 10367– 10371. PMC3121816 21646524
  5. Anderson NC, Ort E, Kruijne W, Meeter M, & Donk M (2015). It depends on when you look at it: Salience influences eye movements in natural scene viewing and search early in time. Journal of Vision, 15(5), 9. 10.1167/15.5.9 26067527 · DOI
  6. Awh E, Belopolsky AV, & Theeuwes J (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437– 443. 10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010 22795563 PMC3426354 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Bacon WF, & Egeth HE (1994). Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture. Perception & Psychophysics, 55(5), 485– 496. 10.3758/BF03205306 8008550 · DOI
  8. Chang S, & Egeth HE (2019). Enhancement and Suppression Flexibly Guide Attention. Psychological Science, 30(12), 1724– 1732. 10.1177/0956797619878813 31693453 · DOI
  9. Donk M (2021). The progress revisited: How the dispute between stimulus-driven and contingent-capture advocates is hampered by a blindness for change. Visual Cognition, 29(9), 548– 551. 10.1080/13506285.2021.1912233 · DOI
  10. Donk M, & Soesman L (2010). Salience is only briefly represented: Evidence from probe-detection performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 286– 302. 10.1037/a0017605 20364919 · DOI
  11. Donk M, & van Zoest W (2008). Effects of Salience Are Short-Lived. Psychological Science, 19(7), 733– 739. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02149.x 18727790 · DOI
  12. Engbert R, Nuthmann A, Richter EM, & Kliegl R (2005). SWIFT: A Dynamical Model of Saccade Generation During Reading. Psychological Review, 112(4), 777– 813. 10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.777 16262468 · DOI
  13. Findlay JM (1997). Saccade target selection during visual search. Vision Research, 37(5), 617– 631. 9156206
  14. Gaspelin N, Gaspar JM, & Luck SJ (2019). Oculomotor inhibition of salient distractors: Voluntary inhibition cannot override selection history. Visual Cognition, 27(3–4), 227– 246. 10.1080/13506285.2019.1600090 31745389 PMC6863449 · DOI
  15. Gaspelin N, Lamy D, Egeth HE, Liesefeld HR, Kerzel D, Mandal A, Müller MM, Schall JD, Schubö A, Slagter HA, Stilwell BT, & Van Moorselaar D (2023). The Distractor Positivity Component and the Inhibition of Distracting Stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 35(11), 1693– 1715. 10.1162/jocn_a_02051 37677060 · DOI
  16. Gaspelin N, Leonard CJ, & Luck SJ (2015). Direct Evidence for Active Suppression of Salient-but-Irrelevant Sensory Inputs. Psychological Science, 26(11), 1740– 1750. 10.1177/0956797615597913 26420441 PMC4922750 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Gaspelin N, Leonard CJ, & Luck SJ (2017). Suppression of overt attentional capture by salient-but-irrelevant color singletons. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(1), 45– 62. 10.3758/s13414-016-1209-1 PMC5182083 27804032 · DOI
  18. Gaspelin N, & Luck SJ (2018a). Combined Electrophysiological and Behavioral Evidence for the Suppression of Salient Distractors. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(9), 1265– 1280. 10.1162/jocn_a_01279 29762104 PMC6132257 · DOI
  19. Gaspelin N, & Luck SJ (2018b). Distinguishing among potential mechanisms of singleton suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(4), 626– 644. 10.1037/xhp0000484 29035072 PMC5897145 · DOI
  20. Gaspelin N, & Luck SJ (2018c). The Role of Inhibition in Avoiding Distraction by Salient Stimuli. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(1), 79– 92. 10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.001 29191511 PMC5742040 · DOI
  21. Geng JJ (2014). Attentional Mechanisms of Distractor Suppression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 147– 153. 10.1177/0963721414525780 · DOI
  22. Geyer T, Müller HJ, & Krummenacher J (2008). Expectancies modulate attentional capture by salient color singletons. Vision Research, 48(11), 1315– 1326. 10.1016/j.visres.2008.02.006 18407311 · DOI
  23. Ghez C, Favilla M, Ghilardi MF, Gordon J, Bermejo R, & Pullman S (1997). Discrete and continuous planning of hand movements and isometric force trajectories: Experimental Brain Research, 115(2), 217– 233. 10.1007/PL00005692 9224851 · DOI
  24. Godijn R, & Theeuwes J (2002). Programming of endogenous and exogenous saccades: Evidence for a competitive integration model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(5), 1039– 1054. 10.1037/0096-1523.28.5.1039 12421054 · DOI
  25. Gold JI, & Shadlen MN (2000). Representation of a perceptual decision in developing oculomotor commands. Nature, 404(6776), 390– 394. 10.1038/35006062 10746726 · DOI
  26. Gold JI, & Shadlen MN (2003). The Influence of Behavioral Context on the Representation of a Perceptual Decision in Developing Oculomotor Commands. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(2), 632– 651. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-02-00632.2003 12533623 PMC6741872 · DOI
  27. Haith AM, Pakpoor J, & Krakauer JW (2016). Independence of Movement Preparation and Movement Initiation. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(10), 3007– 3015. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3245-15.2016 26961954 PMC6601759 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Hardwick RM, Forrence AD, Krakauer JW, & Haith AM (2019). Time-dependent competition between goal-directed and habitual response preparation. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(12), Article 12. 10.1038/s41562-019-0725-0 31570762 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Harel J, Koch C, & Perona P (2007). Graph-based visual saliency. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 545– 552.
  30. Hickey C, van Zoest W, & Theeuwes J (2010). The time course of exogenous and endogenous control of covert attention. Experimental Brain Research, 201(4), 789– 796. 10.1007/s00221-009-2094-9 19940982 PMC2839488 · DOI
  31. Hunt AR, von Mühlenen A, & Kingstone A (2007). The time course of attentional and oculomotor capture reveals a common cause. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(2), 271. 17469968
  32. Itti L, & Koch C (2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Research, 40(10–12), 1489– 1506. 10788654
  33. Kerzel D, & Schönhammer J (2013). Salient stimuli capture attention and action. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(8), 1633– 1643. 10.3758/s13414-013-0512-3 23918550 · DOI
  34. Kong S, Li X, Wang B, & Theeuwes J (2020). Proactively location-based suppression elicited by statistical learning. PLOS ONE, 15(6), e0233544. 10.1371/journal.pone.0233544 32479531 PMC7263585 · DOI
  35. Lien M-C, & Ruthruff E (2023). Shattering the Attentional Window: What Really Determines Capture by Abrupt Onsets and Color Singletons? Journal of Cognition, 6(1), NA– NA. 10.5334/joc.269 PMC10327852 37426058 · DOI
  36. Liesefeld HR, Lamy D, Gaspelin N, Geng JJ, Kerzel D, Schall JD, Allen HA, Anderson BA, Boettcher S, Busch NA, Carlisle NB, Colonius H, Draschkow D, Egeth H, Leber AB, Müller HJ, Röer JP, Schubö A, Slagter HA, … Wolfe J (2024). Terms of debate: Consensus definitions to guide the scientific discourse on visual distraction. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. 10.3758/s13414-023-02820-3 PMC11552440 38177944 · DOI
  37. Luck SJ, Gaspelin N, Folk CL, Remington RW, & Theeuwes J (2020). Progress toward resolving the attentional capture debate. Visual Cognition, 1– 21. 10.1080/13506285.2020.1848949 33574729 PMC7872136 · DOI
  38. Moher J, & Egeth HE (2012). The ignoring paradox: Cueing distractor features leads first to selection, then to inhibition of to-be-ignored items. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(8), 1590– 1605. 10.3758/s13414-012-0358-0 22893004 · DOI
  39. Müller HJ, Geyer T, Zehetleitner M, & Krummenacher J (2009). Attentional capture by salient color singleton distractors is modulated by top-down dimensional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(1), 1– 16. 10.1037/0096-1523.35.1.1 19170466 · DOI
  40. Oxner M, Martinovic J, Forschack N, Lempe R, Gundlach C, & Müller M (2023). Global enhancement of target color—Not proactive suppression—Explains attentional deployment during visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(6), 1705– 1722. 10.1037/xge0001350 37023328 · DOI
  41. Palmer EM, Van Wert MJ, Horowitz TS, & Wolfe JM (2019). Measuring the time course of selection during visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(1), 47– 60. 10.3758/s13414-018-1596-6 30242674 · DOI
  42. Peirce JW (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8– 13. 17254636 PMC2018741
  43. Sawaki R, & Luck SJ (2010). Capture versus suppression of attention by salient singletons: Electrophysiological evidence for an automatic attend-to-me signal. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(6), 1455– 1470. 10.3758/APP.72.6.1455 PMC3705921 20675793 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Schouten J, & Bekker J (1967). Reaction time and accuracy. Acta Psychologica, 27, 143– 153. 6062205
  45. Siebold A, van Zoest W, & Donk M (2011). Oculomotor Evidence for Top-Down Control following the Initial Saccade. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e23552. 10.1371/journal.pone.0023552 21931603 PMC3169564 · DOI
  46. Song J-H, & Nakayama K (2008). Target selection in visual search as revealed by movement trajectories. Vision Research, 48(7), 853– 861. 10.1016/j.visres.2007.12.015 18262583 · DOI
  47. Sprague TC, Itthipuripat S, Vo VA, & Serences JT (2018). Dissociable signatures of visual salience and behavioral relevance across attentional priority maps in human cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 119(6), 2153– 2165. 10.1152/jn.00059.2018 29488841 PMC6032112 · DOI
  48. Stilwell BT, Adams OJ, Egeth HE, & Gaspelin N (2023). The role of salience in the suppression of distracting stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 10.3758/s13423-023-02302-5 37231178 · DOI
  49. Stilwell BT, Bahle B, & Vecera SP (2019). Feature-based statistical regularities of distractors modulate attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(3), 419– 433. 10.1037/xhp0000613 30802131 · DOI
  50. Stilwell BT, & Gaspelin N (2021). Attentional suppression of highly salient color singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(10), 1313– 1328. 10.1037/xhp0000948 34766817 · DOI
  51. Sumner P (2011). Determinants of saccade latency. The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements, 413– 424.
  52. Tam J, Callahan-Flintoft C, & Wyble B (2022). What the Flip? What the P-N Flip Can Tell Us about Proactive Suppression. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 34(11), 2100– 2112. 10.1162/jocn_a_01901 35939619 · DOI
  53. Theeuwes J (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics, 51(6), 599– 606. 10.3758/BF03211656 1620571 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Theeuwes J (2018). Visual Selection: Usually Fast and Automatic; Seldom Slow and Volitional. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 29. 10.5334/joc.13 31517202 PMC6634613 · DOI
  55. Theeuwes J (2022). The Attentional Capture Debate: When Can We Avoid Salient Distractors and When Not? Journal of Cognition, 6(1), 35. 10.5334/joc.251 PMC10327859 37426061 · DOI
  56. Theeuwes J, de Vries G-J, & Godijn R (2003). Attentional and oculomotor capture with static singletons. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(5), 735– 746. 10.3758/BF03194810 12956581 · DOI
  57. van Heusden E, van Zoest W, Donk M, & Olivers CNL (2022). An attentional limbo: Saccades become momentarily non-selective in between saliency-driven and relevance-driven selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(4), 1327– 1337. 10.3758/s13423-022-02091-3 35378672 PMC8979483 · DOI
  58. van Leeuwen J, Smeets JBJ, & Belopolsky AV (2019). Forget binning and get SMART: Getting more out of the time-course of response data. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(8), 2956– 2967. 10.3758/s13414-019-01788-3 PMC6856044 31214973 · DOI
  59. Van Zoest W, & Donk M (2008). Goal-driven modulation as a function of time in saccadic target selection. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(10), 1553– 1572. 10.1080/17470210701595555 17926227 · DOI
  60. van Zoest W, Donk M, & Theeuwes J (2004). The Role of Stimulus-Driven and Goal-Driven Control in Saccadic Visual Selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4), 746– 759. 10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.749 15305440 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Wang B, Samara I, & Theeuwes J (2019). Statistical regularities bias overt attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(6), 1813– 1821. 10.3758/s13414-019-01708-5 PMC6675758 30919311 · DOI
  62. Wang B, & Theeuwes J (2018a). How to inhibit a distractor location? Statistical learning versus active, top-down suppression. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(4), 860– 870. 10.3758/s13414-018-1493-z 29476331 · DOI
  63. Wang B, & Theeuwes J (2018b). Statistical regularities modulate attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(1), 13. 29309194
  64. Wang B, & Theeuwes J (2020). Salience determines attentional orienting in visual selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(10), 1051– 1057. 10.1037/xhp0000796 32757594 · DOI
  65. Weaver MD, van Zoest W, & Hickey C (2017). A temporal dependency account of attentional inhibition in oculomotor control. NeuroImage, 147, 880– 894. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.11.004 27836709 · DOI
  66. Wolfe JM (2021). Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(4), 1060– 1092. 10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9 33547630 PMC8965574 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Won B-Y, Kosoyan M, & Geng JJ (2019). Evidence for second-order singleton suppression based on probabilistic expectations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(1), 125– 138. 10.1037/xhp0000594 30596437 PMC8815295 · DOI
  68. Wood DK, Gallivan JP, Chapman CS, Milne JL, Culham JC, & Goodale MA (2011). Visual salience dominates early visuomotor competition in reaching behavior. Journal of Vision, 11(10), 16. 10.1167/11.10.16 21940762 · DOI
  69. Wyble B, Callahan-Flintoft C, Chen H, Marinov T, Sarkar A, & Bowman H (2020). Understanding visual attention with RAGNAROC: A reflexive attention gradient through neural AttRactOr competition: Psychological Review. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1163– 1198. 10.1037/rev0000245 32772529 · DOI
  70. Zhang H, Sellers J, Lee T, & Jonides J (2024, May). Temporal Dynamics of Visual Attention. OSF. https://osf.io/62pre/ PMC11790386 39361368

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, H., Sellers, J., Lee, T. G., & Jonides, J.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2025-02
Volume
154
Issue
2
Pages
435-456
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W4403099571
Cited by
21
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 2
FWCI
2.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1658268)
  • National Institutes of Health (R21MH129909)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
visual attention, distractor suppression, attentional priority, temporal dynamics, salient distractors, saccades, attentional bias, computational model of attention, attention allocation
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Saccades, Time Factors, Visual Perception, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review