Professor Yan Song’s research group published a paper in PLOS Biology revealing the neural mechanisms underlying the suppression of visuospatial distraction

Release time:

2025-10-20

When we come to a fork in the road on our way home and see a sign that reads, “Beware of the polar bear on the left,” our attempt to suppress the distracting information actually makes it easier for us to notice it—this is the classic “polar bear effect” in attentional processing (Figure 1). How does our brain handle the spatial “polar bear effect” to help us better achieve spatial goal-directed search? On March 8, 2023, the research group led by Professor Yan Song from the State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning at Beijing Normal University published online in the journal PLOS Biology a paper titled “Suppression of distracting inputs by visual-spatial cues is driven by anticipatory alpha activity.” In this study, using three experiments, the researchers collected EEG and behavioral data from 110 healthy adults performing visual search tasks under conditions of distractor prompts, thereby revealing the neural mechanisms underlying visual-spatial interference.

When we encounter a road sign saying “Beware of Polar Bears on the Left” on our way home, we often try to suppress this distracting information, yet paradoxically become even more aware of it—this is the classic “white bear effect” in attention psychology (Figure 1). How does the brain process this spatial “white bear effect” to help us better perform goal-directed spatial search tasks? On March 8, 2023, the research team led by Professor Yan Song from the State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning at Beijing Normal University published a paper titled “Suppression of distracting inputs by visuospatial cues is driven by anticipatory alpha activity” in PLOS Biology. In this study, researchers collected EEG and behavioral data from 110 healthy adults performing visual search tasks under distracting cue conditions across three experiments, revealing the neural mechanisms by which the brain actively suppresses visuospatial distraction.

Figure 1. Effects of the white bear effect on attention and alpha power modulation.

Daily life requires us to selectively attend to information from different locations within complex visual environments. Because attentional resources are limited, when spatial cues indicate the presence of distractors, the brain often adopts an “active suppression” mechanism to proactively inhibit those distractors in visual space, thereby improving selection of task-relevant targets from surrounding interference.

In Experiment 1, researchers presented participants with valid or invalid spatial location cues before the visual search task. Results showed that valid distractor cues influenced the subsequent distribution of spatial gradient effects across various behavioral measures (Figure 2): cues indicating distractors far from the target enhanced participants’ behavioral responses, whereas cues indicating distractors close to the target weakened behavioral performance. These findings suggest that active suppression of distractors can significantly modulate spatial proximity effects in behavior, introducing a new behavioral index for studying spatial distraction suppression.

Figure 2. Spatial information from distractor cues influenced the subsequent distribution of distraction gradients across different behavioral measures.

At the same time, researchers used a spatial encoding model to reconstruct stimulus-specific activation representations (channel tuning functions, CTFs) based on scalp alpha-band power (8–12 Hz) distributions. They found that these CTFs dynamically represented distractor suppression during the anticipatory stage (Figure 3). Furthermore, approximately 1200 ms after cue onset, the slope of the CTF showed a significant distractor cueing effect: specifically, under valid distractor cue conditions, the CTF slope became more negative. As shown in Figure 3D, responses in contralateral channels (channels opposite to the cued distractor location) were relatively enhanced, while responses in ipsilateral channels (channels on the same side as the cued distractor location) were relatively reduced. Researchers further found that changes in CTFs under valid and invalid distractor cue conditions were significantly negatively correlated with corresponding behavioral changes. This suggests that the spatial gradient distribution of alpha power induced by anticipated distraction can explain the spatial proximity effects subsequently observed in behavior.

Figure 3. Spatial information about distractors induced changes in anticipatory alpha-band modulation and influenced subsequent behavioral performance.

Experimental results also demonstrated that valid distractor cues induced late negative alpha lateralization modulation during the anticipatory stage (alpha modulation index, α MI), whereas invalid distractor cues did not. During the subsequent visual search stage, valid distractor cues failed to evoke the ERP component PD, which typically reflects distractor suppression, whereas invalid distractor cues successfully elicited this component. These findings indicate that valid distractor cues reduce attentional capture triggered by distractor appearance (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Spatial information about distractors impaired anticipatory alpha-band lateralization and subsequently modulated ERP components related to distractor suppression.

To further verify these findings and eliminate potential confounding factors, researchers manipulated the spatial probability of distractor cues in Experiment 2, as shown in Figure 5A. Results demonstrated that the spatial validity of distractor cues also influenced behavioral performance, alpha-band lateralization, and the ERP component PD. Moreover, when distractor cues provided highly valid spatial information, significant correlations were observed between anticipatory alpha-band lateralization and subsequent PD amplitude at both within-subject and between-subject levels. However, when distractor cue validity was low, these correlations disappeared. In Experiment 3, researchers further changed distractor cues from fan-shaped cues to arrow-shaped cues and again confirmed that spatial information provided by distractor cues could predict subsequent changes in distractor suppression through anticipatory alpha-band lateralization.

Figure 5. The validity of spatial information provided by distractors affected behavioral performance, reflected in anticipatory alpha-band lateralization and subsequent ERP components associated with distractor suppression.

In the 1920s, Hans Berger first discovered oscillatory activity in the alpha band. In 1996, Pfurtscheller interpreted alpha power as reflecting “cortical idling.” In 2010, Jensen proposed that the inhibitory hypothesis of alpha activity could be understood through a gating mechanism. To date, the influential paper “Shaping Functional Architecture by Oscillatory Alpha Activity: Gating by Inhibition” has been widely accepted and cited over 2,245 times. However, the lack of alpha activity in distractor processing has challenged this theory. Some studies suggested that alpha power provides limited evidence for inhibitory gating. This issue has long remained like a “dark cloud” over the development of the inhibitory gating theory (Figure 6). The present study reveals the underlying neural mechanism of active suppression, demonstrating that alpha-band power during the preparatory stage plays a critical role in reducing distraction and is closely associated with distractor-induced ERP components. These findings strongly support the theory that alpha activity serves as an active inhibitory gate.

Figure 6. The “gating by inhibition” theory and the present study.

This research was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32271094, 31871099, 62201064, 32200870) and the “Science and Technology Innovation 2030” Major Program (2021ZD0204300, 2022ZD0211300). Dr. Chengguang Zhao and PhD student Yuanjun Kong from Beijing Normal University were co-first authors of the paper, and Professor Yan Song served as the corresponding author. PhD student Dongwei Li and graduate student Lujiao Kong from Beijing Normal University also contributed to this research. Professor Xiaoli Li and Associate Researcher Jing Huang from Beijing Normal University, as well as Professor Ole Jensen from the University of Birmingham, made important contributions to the study.

Paper link:
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002014

Related studies:

Zhao, C., Li, D., Guo, J., Li, B., Kong, Y., Hu, Y., Du, B., Ding, Y., Li, X., Liu, H., & Song, Y. (2022). Neurovascular coupling between electrophysiological and hemodynamic activity during anticipatory selective attention. Cerebral Cortex, bhab525.
Zhao, C., Guo, J., Li, D., Tao, Y., Ding, Y., Liu, H., & Song, Y. (2019). Anticipatory alpha oscillations predict attentional selection and hemodynamic responses. Human Brain Mapping, 40, 3606–3619.
Huang, J., Wang, F., Ding, Y., Niu, H., Tian, F., Liu, H., & Song, Y. (2015). Predicting the N2pc from anticipatory HbO activity during sustained visuospatial attention: A concurrent fNIRS-ERP study. NeuroImage, 113, 225–234.

Previous item

None

Chase Your Dreams, Embrace the Golden Years | GreenTech Sincerely Seeks Talented Professionals

Next one

Professor Yan Song’s research group published a paper in PLOS Biology revealing the neural mechanisms underlying the suppression of visuospatial distraction

Sorry，当前栏目暂无内容!

Sorry，The current column has no content!