Visual features drive attentional bias for threat

Abstract

Past studies argued that the attentional capture by threats is hard to inhibit. When using threats as task-irrelevant stimuli, this effect can deteriorate performance on the primary task. Whether attentional capture is driven by affective information (threat) or visual features (shape) is still debated. Here we aimed to investigate the role of threat value and shape in modulating attentional resources by conducting two experiments (total N = 87). Participants engaged in a semantic vigilance task responding to masked words appearing at the centre of the screen while ignoring threat-relevant (threatening or visually similar but nonthreatening) and neutral control distractor images placed at different distances from the target word. We found no performance difference between participants exposed to threat-related stimuli via affective or shape features. Moreover, while performance decreased when a neutral distractor appeared close (compared to further away) to the target word, stimulus eccentricity had no effect when the distractor (irrespective of the conveying feature) was threat relevant. Our findings are in line with previous studies showing an initial capture of attention by threat-relevant information but that this negative effect is compensated by an increase in arousal. We conclude that even the visual features of a stimulus can modulate attention toward threats.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pvis20
Visual Cognition
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/pvis20
Visual features drive attentional bias for threat
Diána T. Pakai-Stecina, Botond Laszlo Kiss, Julia Basler & Andras N. Zsido
To cite this article: Diána T. Pakai-Stecina, Botond Laszlo Kiss, Julia Basler & Andras N.
Zsido (29 Feb 2024): Visual features drive attentional bias for threat, Visual Cognition, DOI:
10.1080/13506285.2024.2315808
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2024.2315808
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
View supplementary material
Published online: 29 Feb 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Visual features drive attentional bias for threat
Diána T. Pakai-Stecina
a,b
, Botond Laszlo Kiss
a
, Julia Basler
a
and Andras N. Zsido
a
a
Institute of Psychology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary;
b
Institute of Psychology, University of Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany
ABSTRACT
Past studies argued that the attentional capture by threats is hard to inhibit. When using threats as
task-irrelevant stimuli, this effect can deteriorate performance on the primary task. Whether
attentional capture is driven by affective information (threat) or visual features (shape) is still
debated. Here we aimed to investigate the role of threat value and shape in modulating
attentional resources by conducting two experiments (total N= 87). Participants engaged in a
semantic vigilance task responding to masked words appearing at the centre of the screen
while ignoring threat-relevant (threatening or visually similar but nonthreatening) and neutral
control distractor images placed at different distances from the target word. We found no
performance difference between participants exposed to threat-related stimuli via affective or
shape features. Moreover, while performance decreased when a neutral distractor appeared
close (compared to further away) to the target word, stimulus eccentricity had no effect when
the distractor (irrespective of the conveying feature) was threat relevant. Our findings are in line
with previous studies showing an initial capture of attention by threat-relevant information but
that this negative effect is compensated by an increase in arousal. We conclude that even the
visual features of a stimulus can modulate attention toward threats.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 19 July 2023
Accepted 18 January 2024
KEYWORDS
Signal suppression;
inhibition; attentional bias
towards threat; general
feature detection; semantic
vigilance
Introduction
Threatening stimuli seem to be prioritizedin visual per-
ception, resulting in faster detection of threatening
objects in the environment (Brown et al., 2010;Fox
et al., 2001; Hedger et al., 2016; Öhman & Mineka,
2001; Subra et al., 2017; Zsido, Stecina, et al., 2022).
Past studies found that reaction times are significantly
faster when it comes to locating threatening target
stimuli over neutral ones (Becker et al., 2011; Blanch-
ette, 2006; Brosch & Sharma, 2005; LoBue, 2010;
Subra et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2006). Furthermore,
threats tend to hold attentional focus delaying atten-
tional shifts (Burra et al., 2019; Fox et al., 2007;
Holmes et al., 2014). Threats seem to produce these
attentional biases stronger and more reliably than
other emotional valences (e.g., positive or negative
non-threatening) and visually salient neutral stimuli
(Csathó et al., 2008;Marchetal.,2017; Williams et al.,
2006; Zsido, Bali, et al., 2022). Attentional biases and
attentional prioritization allow our nervous system to
initiate a quick and adaptive behavioural response in
dangerous situations (LeDoux, 2022; Reinecke et al.,
2009; Trujillo et al., 2021). However, attentional biases
toward threat-related information also serve as the
basis of the acquisition and maintenance of anxiety
disorders, such as phobias; a bias that can be targeted
in interventions to reduce fear and symptoms of
anxiety (Cisler & Koster, 2010;McNally,2018).
Yet, to date, it is still debated whether the advan-
tage that threatening stimuli receive over neutral
stimuli in visual processing is driven by visual or
affective features. According to the general feature
detection theory, threatening stimuli are salient
because of their specificvisual features (e.g., shape,
skin texture, movement) (Coelho & Purkis, 2009;
Davey, 1995). Visual search studies found that curvi-
linear shapes (like the body of a snake) are detected
faster than straight or zigzag lines (LoBue et al., 2014;
Van Strien et al., 2016; Wolfe et al., 1992). An attentional
advantage to downward-pointing V shape (that is geo-
metrically similar to the head of a snake) has also been
observed (Larson et al., 2007). In contrast, the fear
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built
upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
CONTACT Andras N. Zsido zsido.andras@pte.hu Institute of Psychology, University of Pécs, 6. Ifjusag Street, Pécs, Baranya H 7624, Hungary
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2024.2315808.
VISUAL COGNITION
https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2024.2315808

module theory (Mineka & Öhman, 2002;Öhman&
Mineka, 2001) suggests that threatening objects are
salient due to their affective features (e.g., threat-rel-
evance, valence, arousal). More specifically, according
to the arousal-biased competition theory (Mather &
Sutherland, 2011), emotional arousal cannot only
drive cognitive processes and mental representations,
but it can also improve memory and modulate selec-
tive attention. Better understanding the roles of
visual and affective features in the processing of
threat-relevant information could have both theoreti-
cal (i.e., a unified theory) and practical (e.g., refining
attention retraining methodologies) implications.
It was suggested that task-irrelevant threatening
distractors compared to other valences and neutral
ones are more likely to capture attention and decrease
performance (Burra et al., 2017,2019; Fox et al., 2005;
Mancini et al., 2020;Zsido,Bali,etal.,2022), yet prior
work concerning the inhibition or suppression of threa-
tening stimuli is still scarce. Consequently, the under-
lying mechanisms are still not well understood
although it could prove crucial because attentional
inhibitory biases to threat-related information are
core to the development and maintenance of anxiety
and phobias (Koster et al., 2006;Kosteretal.,2006).
In contrast, for visually salient (but emotionally
neutral) stimuli the signal suppression hypothesis
(Sawaki & Luck, 2010a,2011) proposes that the atten-
tional inhibition of objects is possible. According to
the hypothesis salient stimulus in the visual field
creates a signal that grabs attention even though it is
irrelevant to the observer’s goals. This signal,
however, can be actively inhibited with top-down
control before attentional capture happens. This
means that people are capable of attentional control
through top-down, goal-directed mechanisms when
they want to perform well. Inhibition also plays an
important role in emotion regulation and helps us
downregulate the automatic evaluation of salient
objects, such as threatening stimuli (Mogg & Bradley,
2018). Studying how threatening stimuli and visually
similar but neutral distractors can be effectively inhib-
ited compared to control neutral stimuli offers an
opportunity to gain deeper insights into the interplay
between arousal, shape, and the advantageous role
of threat in attentional processes.
Past studies suggest that the prioritization of threats
over neutral stimuli is even greater in the peripheral
vision (Almeida et al., 2015; Öhman et al., 2012). The
brainstem-amygdala-cortex pathway (Gu et al., 2020;
Liddell et al., 2005) and the dorsolateral prefrontal
cortex (Cinq-Mars et al., 2022) ensures effortless evalu-
ation and rapid orienting towards threats, both in and
out of attentional focus. Stimuli that appear outside of
this centre lose details, which makes it harder to ident-
ify their content. To make up for the loss of this infor-
mation, spatial attention works with different eye
movements to bring important objects in the environ-
ment to the centre of the visual field. However, some
stimuli that are characterized by higher arousal and
valence levels, seem to have the ability to grab atten-
tion without corresponding eye movements (Bayle
et al., 2009; Gao et al., 2017; Rigoulot et al., 2012;
Zsido et al., 2019). According to a previous study
(Calvo et al., 2008), the specific contents of emotional
priming scenes presented in peripheral vision were
not precisely processed, however, an impression was
extracted that later oriented selective attention or
caused false alarms for related probes in a recognition
task. Consequently, presenting a threatening stimulus
in the periphery should be harder to ignore than a
neutral stimulus even if it has shared visual features
with the threat. That is, by manipulating the eccentri-
city of threat-related stimuli, we may investigate the
difference between the effect of visual and emotional
features on visual processing.
In the present study, we aimed to test whether the
visual or affective features of threat-related distractor
stimuli are more important in determining attentional
biases to threats. Additionally, we aimed to test
whether the spatial distance (stimulus eccentricity)
between the task and the distractors would have any
effect on inhibition. We used a semantic vigilance
task where participants had to respond to a centrally
presented word and ignore task-irrelevant distractor
images surrounding that word. We employed this
paradigm over a more common visual search task
because attention was fixated on the central task
allowing for a more convenient and reliable manipu-
lation of stimulus eccentricity. This addresses a critique
of past studies (Pakai-Stecina et al., 2023). Further,
using this paradigm we can extract more behavioural
variables besides the usually presented accuracy and
reaction time potentially resulting in a more robust
interpretation. The semantic vigilance task has been
proven successful in a past attempt to demonstrate
the effect of auditory negative emotions on visual
attentional performance (Zsido et al., 2023).
2D. T. PAKAI-STECINA ET AL.

We expected higher vigilance decrement (decline in
the rate of the correct detection of signals) for threat-
related (i.e., threatening and shape-matched nonthrea-
tening) compared to (visually dissimilar) neutral stimuli.
Further, we hypothesized that threatening distractors
would have a more pronounced effect than nonthrea-
tening but visually similar ones. Our second hypothesis
was that the eccentricity of the distractor would have a
greater effect on the performance of the threat con-
dition compared to the shape-matched nonthreatening
condition. We expected that threat compared to shape-
matched nonthreatening distractors would be harder
to inhibit regardless of stimulus eccentricity.
Experiment 1
We adopted a semantic vigilance task similar to previous
studies (Epling et al., 2016;Zsidoetal.,2023). Participants
were instructed to concentrate on masked words
appearing on the centre of the screen one at a time
and respond to living words with the spacebar and
ignore the non-living words. Irrelevant distractive
stimuli (pictures of two living and two non-living
things) also appeared on the screen at three different dis-
tances to the target word: close (visual angle of 5°),
middle (30°), and far (45°). The distractor pictures were
of neutral valence in general, however, there we also
used two special distractors. Participants were divided
into two groups, with one group (threatening distractor)
seeing a threatening picture among the distractors
(snake) and the other group (shape-matched distractor)
seeing a neutral but shape-similar picture to the threa-
tening one (caterpillar) among the distractors. We intro-
duced this manipulation as a between-subject factor to
avoid carry-over effects between seeing an actual
threat and an object that visually resembles it. In both
groups, a neutral, visually dissimilar control distractor
(fish) was used alongside the threatening or the shape-
matched one. Figure 1 shows the trial structure of the
paradigm used along with sample trials from both
visual feature and affectivefeaturegroupsinallthreedis-
tance conditions.
Materials and method
Participants
The required sample size for this experiment was
determined by computing estimated statistical power
based on previous studies of singletons and threat sup-
pression (Sawaki & Luck, 2010b; Zsido et al., 2021,
2023). The analysis (f=.40, 1-β>.8, r= .5) indicated
that the minimum required total sample size was 12
(or 28 with a more conservative approach of f= .25).
We recruited a total of 29 students (21 females, mean
age = 22.6 SD = 3.56) who participated in exchange
for course credit. The threatening distractor group
comprised 16 participants (mean age = 22.1 SD =
2.45). The shape-matched distractor group comprised
13 participants (mean age = 23.2 SD = 4.63).
All participants reported normal or corrected to
normal vision and normal colour vision. Two partici-
pants were excluded because they failed to follow
instructions. The research was approved by the
national ethics committee and was carried out in
accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World
Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki). All par-
ticipants provided written informed consent.
Stimuli
We created a semantic vigilance task based on the
methodology of past studies (Epling et al., 2016). A
list of words, taken from a previous study (Zsido
et al., 2023), consisted of 384 nontarget (non-living)
and 96 target (living) words, with a signal-to-noise
ratio of 1:4 throughout the experiment (target word
probability was .2 and non-target word probability
was .8). At the start of the experiment, the words
were sorted into six lists (counterbalanced across par-
ticipants) to create a unique set of words for each con-
dition. Table 1 shows the number of words and trials
broken down into six conditions (2 types of distractors
and 3 stimulus eccentricities). The words consisted of
three to seven letters (counterbalanced across word
categories and lists). The words were positioned on
the centre of a 1920 × 1080 pixel-sized grey back-
ground with black ink colour of Arial size 9, set to a
transparency level of 35% (see Figure 1). A mask
(dark grey dots on grey background sized 135 × 62
pixels) was placed under the text to make it more
difficult to read.
The special distractor image categories (i.e., snake
for the threatening and caterpillar for the shape-
matched group) were determined based on the
results of an online survey (see Supplementary
material 1) we conducted on an independent
sample (N= 77) where we asked participants to
VISUAL COGNITION 3

write objects that they find threatening and pair them
with an object that is visually similar but is non-threa-
tening. We used the stimuli pair that was mentioned
most frequently. Our goal was to match threatening
objects to ones that people find visually similar but
non-threatening in line with past studies
Figure 1. The top panel (A) shows the trial structure of the paradigm used. First, a fixation cross of 0.5s was shown, then the semantic
decision task followed. Each trial was shown for 3.25s regardless of being a target or non-target word trial and the reaction of the
participants. The task was presented in three blocks (distractors in the close, middle, far positions) and the blocks were randomized.
The bottom panel (B) shows sample trials from both threatening and shape-matched groups in all three (top row: close, middle row:
middle, bottom row: far) distance conditions. Threat distractors are marked with red circles, shape-matched nonthreatening ones are
marked with green circles and visually dissimilar neutral control distractors are marked with blue rectangles.
4D. T. PAKAI-STECINA ET AL.

investigating similar questions (Almeida et al., 2015;
LoBue, 2014; Van Strien et al., 2016; Zsido et al.,
2018; Zsido, Stecina, et al., 2022)
Distractor images were colourful photographs of
real-world objects. Most of the images were collected
from the Massive Memory Database (Hout et al., 2014)
and some images of the snakes, caterpillars, and fish
were sourced from the Internet. None of these
stimuli had a background. The images were resized
to approximately the same size (i.e., no larger than
100 × 100 pixels) maintaining the original pro-
portions. We used a large number of special distrac-
tors (20 exemplars per category) and other
distractors (i.e., 240 categories with 15–16 exemplars
per category) that were randomly sampled across
trials (and participants) to ensure that distractors
and targets were comparable and to reduce the poss-
ible nuisance effects of low- and mid-level visual fea-
tures of the individual objects.
Distractors were placed at one of three relative dis-
tances to the four corners of the mask on every
picture: visual angle of 5° (close), 30° (middle), and
45° (far). In all trials, there was either a threat-relevant
special distractor (snake or caterpillar) or the neutral
control distractor (fish) presented among three
other random objects (e.g., butterfly, leaf, rock,
clock, etc.). Special and control distractors appeared
with equal probability across all word types (living
and non-living), eccentricities (close, middle, and
far), and experimental blocks.
Procedure
Data was collected in small groups on up to 10 com-
puters simultaneously (with non-identical hardware
and software profiles) in a computer room. Partici-
pants were seated in separate work-station booths,
approximately 60cm in front of 17-inch CRT monitors
(resolution 1024 × 768, 4:3 aspect ratio, refresh rate of
60 Hz, colour depth of 65.536k). Stimuli were
presented using the PsychoPy v3.0 software (Peirce,
2007). Data collection sessions were monitored by a
research assistant. After both verbal and written
instructions, participants completed a test run of 10
trials with 5 target present and 5 target-absent
trials. There were no distractor pictures present
during the practice trials and participants got feed-
back on their reactions (correct/incorrect). Practice
trials were excluded from the analysis. Participants
also had their chance to ask questions if they had
any before starting the real experiment. Then, all par-
ticipants present at the data collection site started the
task at the same time, having to press the spacebar
when a living word appeared on the screen. One
stimulus picture was presented for 3.25 s preceded
by a fixation cross of 0.5 s (see Figure 1). Stimuli
were presented in three blocks according to the
three eccentricity conditions (close, middle, far). The
presentation of the blocks was randomized across
participants. The task took approximately 30 min to
complete.
Statistical analysis
There were no outliers, defined as those more than 2
standard deviations below or above the group mean,
for accuracy; while we identified and removed the
outlier for reaction time (less than 3% of trials).
Unlike past studies that used a visual search para-
digm, we also calculated the signal detection theory
metrics of d prime (d’, sensitivity) and response bias
(c) in line with semantic vigilance studies (Epling
et al., 2016; Zsido et al., 2023). We used the formulas
d’=z(H)-z(FA) and c=−1/2*[z(H)+z(FA)] for this
purpose. Here, z(H) is the z-transformed value of the
proportion of corrected detection (Hits) and z(FA) is
the z-transformed value of the proportion of False
Alarms.
Statistical analyses were completed with the help of
the JAMOVI Statistics Program v2.0 (Jamovi Project,
Table 1. Number of words and trials broken down to six experimental blocks. Special distractors were snakes for those in the affective
feature group and caterpillars for those in the visual feature group.
Condition Distractor type Number of words
Close condition With special distractor (snake or caterpillar) 16 target, 64 non-target
With neutral control distractor (fish) 16 target, 64 non-target
Middle condition With special distractor (snake or caterpillar) 16 target, 64 non-target
With neutral control distractor (fish) 16 target, 64 non-target
Far condition With special distractor (snake or caterpillar) 16 target, 64 non-target
With neutral control distractor (fish) 16 target, 64 non-target
Total 96 target, 384 non-target
VISUAL COGNITION 5

2022). We performed a 2 × 3 × 2 repeated measures
analysis of variance (rANOVA) with Distractor Type
(threat-related and control) and Distance (close,
middle, far) as within-subject factors and the Groups
(threatening and shape-matched distractor) as a
between-subject factor to test the effect of threat
and shape-matched threat-relevant but nonthreaten-
ing distractors on vigilance performance. The accuracy,
d’,c, and RT values were analyzed separately. Main
effects and interactions are reported separately,
paired with relevant follow-up analyses to further
investigate the significant interactions. Effect sizes are
also presented: partial eta squared (
h
2
p) for the
rANOVAs. Tukey corrections were used to account for
multiple comparisons. Both the normality and hom-
ogeneity of variances assumptions for the ANOVA
analysis were met. Please note that in the interest of
brevity and clarity, the results of the statistical analyses
are presented in tables. See Supplementary material 2
for the detailed descriptive statistics including accu-
racy, d’, c, and RT across all conditions.
Results
Accuracy
We began by examining accuracy to test our predic-
tion that the performance of the threatening distrac-
tor group compared to the shape-matched distractor
group will be worse for threat-related distractors com-
pared to neutral distractors. Figure 2 presents the
descriptive statistics; see Table 2 for significant stat-
istical results and Supplementary material 3 for the
full report on all statistical results. The interaction
between the Distractor Type and Group was non-
significant; thus, our hypothesis was not supported,
and neither the effect of threatening nor that of visu-
ally similar stimuli was different when compared to
neutral stimuli. We also expected that the threatening
distractor group would be more affected by the dis-
tance of distractors than the shape-matched distrac-
tor group, with the distractors only interfering with
the close distractor stimuli in the latter and interfering
regardless of distance in the former group. Contrary
to our hypothesis, we did not find a significant inter-
action between Distance, Distractor Type, and Group
either.
The main effect of Distance and the interaction
between Distance and Distractor Type was significant.
Teasing apart the interaction revealed that the main
effect of Distance was only significant in the neutral
control condition. Participants were less accurate
when the neutral target was close to the semantic
task compared to when it was further away. The
effect of Distance was nonsignificant in the Threat-rel-
evant condition. All other effects were nonsignificant.
d’scores
We then examined d’scores to check for our predic-
tions. Figure 3 presents the descriptive statistics; see
Table 2 and Supplementary material 3 for the statisti-
cal results. Contrary to our expectations both the Dis-
tractor Type x Group and the Distance x Distractor
Type x Group interactions were nonsignificant
meaning that neither the effect of threatening nor
that of visually similar stimuli was different when
compared to neutral stimuli.
Again, both the Distance main effect and Distance x
Distractor Type interaction were significant. The
Distance effect was only significant for the control but
not the threat-relevant conditions. That is, participants’
performance was worse in the neutral control condition
when distractors were presented close to the target
word than when they were presented in middle and
far eccentricities. All other effects were nonsignificant.
cscores
We next examined the cscores, again to check for our
predictions regarding the threat-relevant distractors.
Figure 4 presents the descriptive statistics; see Table
2and Supplementary material 3 for the statistical
results. Contrary to our expectations, again, both
the Distractor Type x Group and the Distance x Dis-
tractor Type x Group interactions were nonsignificant
meaning that neither the effect of threatening nor
that of visually similar stimuli was different when
compared to neutral stimuli.
The main effect of Distance and the interaction
between Distance and Distractor Type were signifi-
cant. The Distance effect was only significant for the
control but not the threat-relevant conditions. That
is, participants’performance was worse in the
control condition when distractors were presented
close to the target word than when they were pre-
sented in middle and far eccentricities. All other
effects were nonsignificant.
6D. T. PAKAI-STECINA ET AL.

Reaction time
We next examined the RTs to check for our predictions
regarding the threat-relevant distractors. Figure 5
presents the descriptive statistics; see Table 2 and
Supplementary material 3 for the statistical results.
Contrary to our expectations, again, both the Distractor
Type x Group and the Distance x Distractor Type x
Group interactions were nonsignificant meaning that
neither the effect of threatening nor that of visually
similar stimuli was different when compared to
neutral stimuli.
While the interaction between Distance and Dis-
tractor Type was significant, the follow-up analyses
revealed nonsignificant main effects of Distance in
both the control (p= .548) and the threat-relevant
conditions (p= .069). All other effects were
nonsignificant.
Discussion
The main goal of Experiment 1 was to determine
whether visual or affective features of a threat-rel-
evant distractor stimulus are more defining in atten-
tional capture and how the effect changes with the
spatial distance between the task and the
distractors. Overall, we found evidence of a distance
effect; that is, the performance of participants was
lower when a distractor appeared close to the task
compared to when it appeared in the periphery. Sur-
prisingly, however, we found no evidence of differ-
ences in performance for threatening (snake)
versus shape-matched (caterpillar) distractors. In
addition to this, the distance effect was only obser-
vable for the neutral control distractor (fish) but
not for the threat-relevant distractors. The results
may provide evidence for an attentional prioritiza-
tion of threat-related information based on visual
features.
Before we can dive into the discussion of the poss-
ible theoretical explanations behind these results,
we need to check whether the results from a
unique class of images (i.e., snakes and caterpillars)
can be generalized to other types of threatening
information. Further, the lack of significant results
for the threat-related distractors might mean that
the threat manipulation failed. Consequently, we
next sought to rule out stimulus idiosyncrasies or
flukish results as an explanation for what we
observed. For the dual purposes of replication and
to rule out stimulus idiosyncrasies, (and also to test
whether the visual or affective features of the
Figure 2. Accuracy in Experiment 1 for the threatening distractor and shape-matched distractor groups across the three distractor
eccentricities visualized as boxplots (separately for the two types of distractors).
VISUAL COGNITION 7

threat caused this pattern of results), we conducted a
second experiment.
Experiment 2
In Experiment 2, participants performed the same
semantic vigilance task as in Experiment 1. Here, in
addition to the snake, the threatening special distrac-
tor category also included spider, syringe, and gun;
consequently, in addition to caterpillars, the shape-
matched special distractor category also included
stinkbug, knitting-pin, and hairdryer; finally, in addition
to fish, the neutral control distractor category included
cat, kitchen utensil, and perfume bottle. This was
necessary to address the concern left by Experiment
1 that our results were not generalizable to threats.
Further, the sample size in Experiment 1 was rather
low (although the minimum sample size requirement
was met), which also precluded making generalized
claims about the results. Therefore, we aimed to
collect a significantly larger number of responses in
Experiment 2. Our modified design thus allowed us
to explore the effects of affective and visual features
of a threat-related stimulus more broadly.
Materials and method
Participants
We sought to double the sample size of Experiment 1.
We collected data from 58 students (mean age = 20.7,
SD = 1.63) for partial course credit. Five participants
were identified as outliers (defined as those more
than 2 standard deviations below or above the
group mean) and removed, resulting in a total
sample size of 53 participants. The threatening dis-
tractor group comprised 26. The shape-matched dis-
tractor group comprised 27 participants.
All participants reported normal or corrected to
normal vision and normal colour vision. The research
was approved by the national ethics committee and
was carried out in accordance with the Code of
Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration
Table 2. Significant main effect and interactions for all behavioural measures in Experiment 1. Main effects are broken down by
pairwise comparisons, while interactions by follow-up ANOVAs.
Measure Variable df F/t p
h
2
p
Accuracy Distance 2, 54 8.660 < .001 0.243
Close –Middle 27 −3.747 0.002
Close –Far 27 −3.564 0.004
Middle –Far 27 −0.520 0.862
Type * Distance 2, 54 3.970 0.025 0.128
Threat relevant 2, 54 0.403 0.670 0.014
Non-threatening control 2, 54 14.2 < .001 0.337
Close –Middle 27 −5.012 < .001
Close –Far 27 −4.749 < .001
Middle –Far 27 −0.780 0.718
d’Distance 2, 54 8.496 < .001 0.239
Close –Middle 27 −3.379 0.006
Close –Far 27 −3.844 0.002
Middle –Far 27 −0.551 0.847
Type * Distance 2, 54 4.684 0.013 0.148
Threat relevant 2, 54 0.309 0.735 0.011
Non-threatening control 2, 54 14.7 < .001 0.345
Close –Middle 27 −4.651 < .001
Close –Far 27 −4.819 < .001
Middle –Far 27 −0.864 0.667
cDistance 2, 54 7.437 0.001 0.216
Close –Middle 27 2.859 0.021
Close –Far 27 3.844 0.002
Middle –Far 27 0.816 0.697
Type * Distance 2, 54 4.424 0.017 0.141
Threat relevant 2, 54 0.278 0.758 0.010
Non-threatening control 2, 54 12.8 < .001 0.314
Close –Middle 27 4.01 0.001
Close –Far 27 4.82 < .001
Middle –Far 27 1.15 0.492
Reaction time Type * Distance 2, 54 3.3520 0.042 0.110
Threat relevant 2, 54 0.608 0.548 0.021
Non-threatening control 2, 54 2.81 0.069 0.091
Close –Middle 27 1.26 0.428
Close –Far 27 1.95 0.144
Middle –Far 27 1.57 0.275
8D. T. PAKAI-STECINA ET AL.

of Helsinki). All participants provided written
informed consent.
Stimuli and procedure
The semantic vigilance task and the distractor images
were identical to Experiment 1. In all trials, there was
either a special distractor (threatening: snake, spider,
syringe, gun or shape-matched nonthreatening: cater-
pillar, stinkbug, knitting-pin, hairdryer) or a neutral
control distractor (fish, cat, kitchen utensil, perfume
bottle) presented among three other random objects.
Data was collected in small groups on up to 10
computers simultaneously (with non-identical hard-
ware and software profiles) in a computer room. Par-
ticipants were seated in separate work-station booths,
approximately 60cm in front of the computer screens.
In contrast to Experiment 1, stimuli were presented
on 21.5-inch LCD screens (resolution 1920 × 1080,
16:9 aspect ratio, refresh rate of 60 Hz, colour depth
of 16.7M) because we did not have access to the com-
puter room with CRT monitors.
Statistical analysis
We removed participants with outlier values, defined
as those more than 2 standard deviations below or
above the group mean (less than 5% of trials). We cal-
culated the signal detection theory metrics of d’and c.
Statistical analyses were completed with the help
of the JAMOVI Statistics Program v2.0 (Jamovi
Project, 2022). We performed a 2 × 3 × 2 repeated
measures analysis of variance (rANOVA) to test the
effect of Distractor Type (threat-related and control)
and Distance (close, middle, far) as within-subject
factors and the Groups (threatening and shape-
matched) as a between-subject factor on perform-
ance (indicated by accuracy, d’, c, and RT). Only
correct trial RTs were analyzed. Both the normality
and homogeneity of variances assumptions for the
ANOVA analysis were met. Statistical results are pre-
sented in tables instead of in text to make the descrip-
tion of the results easier to follow. See Supplementary
material 2 for the detailed descriptive statistics includ-
ing accuracy, d, c, and RT across all conditions.
Results
Accuracy
We began by examining accuracy to test our predic-
tion that the performance of the threatening distrac-
tor group compared to the shape-matched distractor
group will be worse for threat-related distractors
Figure 3. Sensitivity in Experiment 1 for the threatening distractor and shape- matched distractor groups across the three distractor
eccentricities visualized as boxplots (separately for the two types of distractors).
VISUAL COGNITION 9

compared to neutral control distractors. Figure 6 pre-
sents the descriptive statistics; see Table 3 and Sup-
plementary material 3 for the statistical results.
Replicating the results of Experiment 1, the
interaction between Distractor Type and Group was
nonsignificant; thus, our hypothesis was not sup-
ported, and neither the effect of threatening nor
that of visually similar stimuli was different when
Figure 4. Response bias in Experiment 1 for the threatening distractor and shape- matched distractor groups across the three
distractor eccentricities visualized as boxplots (separately for the two types of distractors).
Figure 5. Reaction time in Experiment 1 for the threatening distractor and shape- matched distractor groups across the three
distractor eccentricities visualized as boxplots (separately for the two types of distractors).
10 D. T. PAKAI-STECINA ET AL.

compared to neutral stimuli. We also expected that
the threatening distractor group would be more
affected by the distance of distractors than the
shape-matched distractor group, with the distractors
only interfering with the close distractor stimuli in
the latter and interfering regardless of distance in
the former group. Again, in line with the results of
Experiment 1 but contrary to our hypothesis, we did
not find a significant interaction between Distance,
Distractor Type, and Group either.
Similarly to Experiment 1, the main effect of Dis-
tance and the interaction between Distance and Dis-
tractor Type was significant. Teasing apart the
interaction revealed that the main effect of Distance
was only significant in the neutral control condition.
Participants were less accurate when the neutral
target was close to the semantic task compared to
when it was further away. The effect of Distance
was nonsignificant in the Threat-relevant condition.
All other effects were nonsignificant.
d’scores
We then examined d’scores to check for our predic-
tions. Figure 7 presents the descriptive statistics; see
Table 3 for significant statistical results and Sup-
plementary material 3 for the full report on all statisti-
cal results. Replicating the results of Experiment 1
both the Distractor Type x Group and the Distance x
Distractor Type x Group interactions were nonsignifi-
cant. Neither the effect of threatening nor that of visu-
ally similar stimuli was different when compared to
neutral stimuli.
Similarly to Experiment 1, the Distance x Distractor
Type interaction was significant with the Distance
effect only being significant for the neutral control
but not the threat-relevant conditions. That is, partici-
pants’performance was worse in the neutral control
condition when distractors were presented close to
the target word than when they were presented in
middle and far eccentricities. All other effects were
nonsignificant.
cscores
We next examined the cscores, again to check for our
predictions regarding the threat-relevant distractors.
Figure 8 presents the descriptive statistics; see Table 3
and Supplementary material3forthestatistical
results. Contrary to our expectations, but in line with
Experiment 1, both the Distractor Type x Group and
the Distance x Distractor Type x Group interactions
were nonsignificant meaning that neither the effect
of threatening nor that of visually similar stimuli was
different when compared to neutral stimuli.
Again, similarly to Experiment 1, the main effect of
Distance and the interaction between Distance and
Distractor Type were significant. The Distance effect
was only significant for the neutral control but not
the threat-relevant conditions. That is, participants’
performance was worse in the control condition
when distractors were presented close to the target
word than when they were presented in middle and
far eccentricities. All other effects were nonsignificant.
Reaction time
We next examined the RTs to check for our predictions
regarding the threat-relevant distractors. Figure 9
presents the descriptive statistics; see Table 3 and
Supplementary material 3 for the statistical results.
Contrary to our expectations, replicating the results
of Experiment 1, the Distractor Type x Group and the
Distance x Distractor Type x Group interactions were
nonsignificant meaning that neither the effect of threa-
tening nor that of visually similar stimuli was different
when compared to neutral stimuli.
In contrast to previous results, the interaction
between Distance and Group was significant;
however, the follow-up analyses revealed that the
main effect of Distance was only significant in the
neutral control but not in the threat-relevant group.
In the control group, participants were faster to
respond when the distractors were presented far
from the target word than when they were presented
in close and middle eccentricities. All other effects
were nonsignificant.
Discussion
In Experiment 2, we replicated the results of Experiment
1; that is, performance was lower when a neutral dis-
tractor appeared close to the task compared to when
it was on the periphery. We found no such effect for
threat-relevant distractors; further, we did not find any
differences between the threatening distractor and
shape-matched distractor groups. This was true even
though, compared to Experiment 1, we used other
VISUAL COGNITION 11

Figure 6. Accuracy in Experiment 2 for the threatening distractor and shape- matched distractor groups across the three distractor
eccentricities visualized as boxplots (separately for the two types of distractors).
Table 3. Significant main effect and interactions for all behavioural measures in Experiment 2. Main effects are broken down by
pairwise comparisons, while interactions by follow-up ANOVAs.
Measure Variable df F/t p
h
2
p
Accuracy Distance 2, 102 3.165 0.046 0.058
Close –Middle 51.0 1.524 0.288
Close –Far 51.0 −2.430 0.048
Middle –Far 51.0 −1.000 0.580
Type * Distance 2, 102 4.454 0.014 0.080
Threat relevant 2, 102 2.040 0.134 0.030
Non-threatening control 2, 102 3.35 0.038 0.048
Close –Middle 51.0 −2.0198 0.042
Close –Far 51.0 −2.3464 0.022
Middle –Far 51.0 −0.0449 0.964
d’Type * Distance 2, 102 4.191 0.018 0.076
Threat relevant 2, 102 0.859 0.426 0.013
Non-threatening control 2, 102 3.67 0.028 0.052
Close –Middle 51.0 −2.238 0.029
Close –Far 51.0 −2.383 0.020
Middle –Far 51.0 0.122 0.903
cDistance 2, 102 3.2757 0.042 0.060
Close –Middle 51.0 −1.01 0.576
Close –Far 51.0 1.57 0.035
Middle –Far 51.0 2.56 0.269
Type * Distance 2, 102 4.4317 0.014 0.080
Threat relevant 2, 102 3.73 0.027 0.054
Close –Middle 51.0 −1.13 0.263
Close –Far 51.0 1.48 0.142
Middle –Far 51.0 2.99 0.004
Non-threatening control 2, 102 1.85 0.161 0.027
Reaction time Type 1, 51 4.296 0.043 0.072
Distance * Groups 2, 102 4.313 0.016 0.073
Threat relevant 2, 102 2.267 0.114 0.080
Non-threatening control 2, 102 3.06 0.054 0.096
Close –Middle 51.0 0.664 0.512
Close –Far 51.0 2.290 0.029
Middle –Far 51.0 1.671 0.105
12 D. T. PAKAI-STECINA ET AL.

types of threatening stimuli, not just snakes and cater-
pillars. Thus, the effects we found in Experiment 1 are
likely not due to the specific shape or a possible differ-
enceinthevisibilityofthetargetsbutrathermaybe
generalized to a wider range of threat-relevant infor-
mation. Similarly, it seems unlikely that the results are
due to a failed threat manipulation because the effect
of threat-related distractors was different compared to
thebaselineeffect seen for the neutral control distrac-
tors in both the threatening distractor and the shape-
matched distractor groups. In contrast to Experiment
1,herewealsofoundadistanceeffect for threat-rel-
evant targets for response bias; that is, the conservative
response bias was lower when the distractor was pre-
sented farther from the task compared to when it
appearedcloser.Insum,again,theresultsofExper-
iment 2 suggest an attentional prioritization of threat-
related information based on visual features.
General discussion
The goal of our two experiments was to test if salient
but task-irrelevant stimuli, i.e., threat-related distrac-
tors, capture attention during a semantic vigilance
task at different stimulus eccentricities. Further, we
sought to investigate whether the attentional
capture is driven by the affective (threat value) or
visual (shape) features of a threatening stimulus. We
did find an effect of stimulus eccentricity for neutral
control distractors –performance was lower when
they were presented closer (compared to farther
away) to the task. Contrary to our expectations, we
did not find such an effect for threat-related distrac-
tors. Also contradicting our hypothesis, we did not
find a difference in task performance between the
threatening and shape-matched distractor groups.
Our results suggest that shape information alone if
threat-related, can affect task performance similarly to
actual threats. This can be seen as further proof of the
general feature detection theory (Coelho & Purkis,
2009; Davey, 1995) the smoke detector principle –
i.e., better to err on the side of caution –(Nesse,
2006). Further, this result is in line with previous
experimental results indicating that shapes that are
strongly associated with threats (e.g., curvy shapes –
snakes, downward pointing V shapes –snakeheads)
can elicit the same responses as threatening images
(of real snakes) (Larson et al., 2007; LoBue, 2014; Van
Strien et al., 2016; Wolfe et al., 1992).
A previous study (Zsido, Stecina, et al., 2022) using
the Rapid Serial Visual Presentation paradigm with
task-relevant threat-related objects showed that
when visual features are sufficient to discriminate
the target from the other items in the stream, there
Figure 7. Sensitivity in Experiment 2 for the threatening distractor and shape- matched distractor groups across the three distractor
eccentricities visualized as boxplots (separately for the two types of distractors).
VISUAL COGNITION 13

was no effect of affective feature (i.e., threat level) on
reaction time or accuracy. While that study was more
focused on working memory resources and used task-
relevant objects, our findings here are similar insofar
as only the visual feature was sufficient to elicit the
same response as the affective feature of a threat.
Somewhat contrary to our findings a recent study
(Pakai-Stecina et al., 2023) using threat-related
objects as distractors found that visual features of
threats are easier to suppress than affective features.
Figure 8. Response bias in Experiment 2 for the threatening distractor and shape- matched distractor groups across the three
distractor eccentricities visualized as boxplots (separately for the two types of distractors).
Figure 9. Reaction time in Experiment 2 for the threatening distractor and shape- matched distractor groups across the three dis-
tractor eccentricities visualized as boxplots (separately for the two types of distractors).
14 D. T. PAKAI-STECINA ET AL.

However, in that study, the presentation of the two
features was mixed; i.e., trials with threatening distrac-
tors and nonthreatening but visually similar distrac-
tors were randomly presented to the participants.
This might have caused a generalization of the
threat effect from the real threatening objects to
those with the same visual features. Participants
who once saw the snake might think that all curvy dis-
tractors were snakes. Thus, a strength of our study is
that the presentation of the two features was not
mixed, i.e., participants only saw threatening or
shape-matched neutral distractors but not both.
This means that the effect we found could not be
caused by a generalization of the threat value to the
visual feature.
Further, Pakai-Stecina et al. (2023) used a visual
search paradigm allowing the participants to freely
explore the visual scene which might have caused a
confound in interpreting the distractor eccentricity
(the distance between the target and distractor). In
the present study, participants fixated on the target
appearing in the centre of the screen while distractors
appeared at the same time in different eccentricities
ensuring that distractors were presented in the
fovea, parafovea, or periphery. Consequently, we
propose that just the shape of the threatening
object can cause the same effect –and, therefore,
lack of distraction –relative to neutral stimuli.
In the present study, we focused solely on threa-
tening and non-threatening images without manipu-
lating arousal using other valences such as positive
images. This restricts the generalizability of our
findings to other types of emotional stimuli. While
the assumption of higher arousal and more negative
valence for the threat compared to neutral categories
is reasonable, we did not measure this directly. There
are other differences between threats and their visu-
ally similar counterparts that could be relevant includ-
ing, e.g., knowledge of the threat.
1
The dual implicit
process model of evaluation (March et al., 2018) pro-
poses two interconnected automatic mechanisms,
where threat perception influences valence proces-
sing, which in turn affects explicit processes like
evaluation. While the emotion (“fear”) elicited by an
object precedes its evaluation (“this is dangerous”),
participants saw several representations so ongoing
attentional processes shall also be considered.
Again, we did not find a difference between threaten-
ing and shape-matched nonthreatening distractors
suggesting that conscious processes (such as evalu-
ation) play a lesser role in attentional biases towards
threats. Given that future studies confirm these
findings, this could be an important step towards an
understanding of the cognitive mechanisms involved
in threat processing and perception as well as the
maintenance of specific phobias.
Stimulus eccentricity mostly affected performance
in trials with neutral control distractors while see-
mingly it had no effect in trials with a threat-related dis-
tractor. Concerning neutral control stimuli the results
are in line with expectations based on, e.g., the
guided search theory (Wolfe, 2021). Stimuli that are
closer to fixation are given priority in attentional pro-
cessing (thus it is harder to inhibit them by top-down
control), while distractors appearing further from the
task are easier to inhibit (and have considerably
smaller effects on task performance). Interestingly, for
both threatening and shape-matched nonthreatening
distractors the performance remained unchanged
across stimulus eccentricities suggesting that the pres-
ence of threat-related information overrides the dis-
tance-related variations. Considering the arousal
stimulation effect theory (Zsido et al., 2018; Zsido
et al., 2020,2021) increased levels of arousal elicited
by threat-relevant information may compensate for a
negative effect of distractors, resulting in overall
better performance in the close condition compared
to neutral control stimuli. While past research has
only demonstrated this effect with threatening
stimuli, our results suggest that it is triggered by
visual features strongly associated with threats.
Some limitations of the study shall be noted. First,
we solely examined behavioural outcomes and did
not investigate neural correlates, which could have
provided a more comprehensive understanding of
the underlying mechanisms. In future directions, our
study can be expanded by investigating the neural
pathways underlying attentional biases towards
threatening stimuli, utilizing techniques such as EEG
and ERP to explore the temporal dynamics and
neural signatures associated with these biases.
Second, individual differences such as anxiety and
(both objective and subjective) fatigue levels may
interact with the arousal and distracting effects of
threats. Incorporating measures of anxiety and
fatigue would enable direct monitoring of partici-
pants’vigilance and anxiety levels during the task
and may provide deeper insights into the results.
VISUAL COGNITION 15

In conclusion, our findings support the notion that
threat information affects attentional processing
based on visual features. The effect of threat-related
distractors seems to be independent of their distance
from the fovea they seem to enhance performance on
the primary task when presented near it. Understand-
ing this attentional bias towards threat-related infor-
mation is crucial, as it forms the foundation for the
development and persistence of anxiety disorders,
including phobias. Targeting the attentional bias
associated with threat-relevant features through
interventions aimed at reducing fear and anxiety
symptoms can have significant implications for
improving treatment outcomes (Cisler & Koster,
2010; McNally, 2018).
Note
1. We thank Reviewer 2 for pointing this out and helping
us to make this explicit.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
DTPS was supported by the German Academic Exchange
Service (DAAD) (Funding ID: 57588369) and the New National
Excellence Program (ÚNKP-21-3) of the Ministry of Innovation
and Technology. ANZS was supported by the ÚNKP-23-5
New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Inno-
vation and Technology from the source of the National
Research, Development and Innovation Fund, the OTKA PD
137588 and OTKA FK 146604 research grants, and the János
Bolyai Research Scholarship provided by the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences. BLK and JB was supported by the
OTKA K 143254 research grants of the National Research,
Development and Innovation Office.
Availability of data and material
The data that support the findings of this study are available
from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Author contribution
DTPS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data cura-
tion, Visualization, Formal analysis, Project administration,
Funding acquisition, Writing –Original draft, Reviewing and
Editing; JB: Data curation, Visualization, Formal analysis,
Writing –Reviewing and Editing; BK: Data curation, Visualiza-
tion, Formal analysis, Writing –Reviewing and Editing; ANZS:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Funding acqui-
sition, Writing –Original draft, Reviewing and Editing.
ORCID
Andras N. Zsido http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0506-6861
References
Almeida, I., Soares, S. C., & Castelo-Branco, M. (2015). The dis-
tinct role of the amygdala, superior colliculus and pulvinar
in processing of central and peripheral snakes. PLoS One,
10(6), e0129949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0129949
Bayle, D. J., Henaff, M. A., & Krolak-Salmon, P. (2009).
Unconsciously perceived fear in peripheral vision alerts the
limbic system: A MEG study. PLoS One,4(12), e8207.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008207
Becker, D. V., Anderson, U. S., Mortensen, C. R., Neufeld, S. L., &
Neel, R. (2011). The face in the crowd effect unconfounded:
Happy faces, not angry faces, are more efficiently detected
in single- and multiple-target visual search tasks. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General,140(4), 637–659.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024060
Blanchette, I. (2006). Snakes, spiders, guns, and syringes: How
specific are evolutionary constraints on the detection of
threatening stimuli? Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology,59(8), 1484–1504. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02724980543000204
Brosch, T., & Sharma, D. (2005). The role of fear-relevant stimuli
in visual search: A comparison of phylogenetic and onto-
genetic stimuli. Emotion,5(3), 360–364. https://doi.org/10.
1037/1528-3542.5.3.360
Brown, C., El-Deredy, W., & Blanchette, I. (2010). Attentional
modulation of visual-evoked potentials by threat:
Investigating the effect of evolutionary relevance. Brain
and Cognition,74(3), 281–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bandc.2010.08.008
Burra, N., Coll, S. Y., Barras, C., & Kerzel, D. (2017).
Electrophysiological evidence for attentional capture by
irrelevant angry facial expressions: Naturalistic faces.
Neuroscience Letters,637,44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neulet.2016.11.055
Burra, N., Pittet, C., Barras, C., & Kerzel, D. (2019). Attentional
suppression is delayed for threatening distractors. Visual
Cognition,27(3–4), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13506285.2019.1593272
Calvo, M. G., Nummenmaa, L., & Hyönä, J. (2008). Emotional
scenes in peripheral vision: Selective orienting and gist pro-
cessing, But not content identification. Emotion,8(1), 68–80.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.1.68
Cinq-Mars, J., Blumenthal, A., Grund, A., Hétu, S., & Blanchette, I.
(2022). DLPFC controls the rapid neural response to visual
threat: An ERP and rTMS study. Brain Research,1784,
147850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2022.147850
16 D. T. PAKAI-STECINA ET AL.

Cisler, J. M., & Koster, E. H. W. (2010). Mechanisms of attentional
biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An integrative
review. Clinical Psychology Review,30(2), 203–216. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.003
Coelho, C. M., & Purkis, H. (2009). The origins of specific
phobias: Influential theories and current perspectives.
Review of General Psychology,13(4), 335–348. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0017759
Csathó, Á, Tey, F., & Davis, G. (2008). Threat perception and tar-
geting: The brainstem–amygdala–cortex alarm system in
action? Cognitive Neuropsychology,25(7–8), 1039–1064.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290801996360
Davey, G. C. L. (1995). Preparedness and phobias: Specific
evolved associations or a generalized expectancy bias?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,18(02), 289–297. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0140525X00038498
Epling, S. L., Russell, P. N., & Helton, W. S. (2016). A new seman-
tic vigilance task: Vigilance decrement, workload, and sensi-
tivity to dual-task costs. Experimental Brain Research,234(1),
133–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4444-0
Fox, E., Griggs, L., & Mouchlianitis, E. (2007). The detection of
fear-relevant stimuli: Are guns noticed as quickly as
snakes? Emotion,7(4), 691–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1528-3542.7.4.691
Fox, E., Russo, R., Bowles, R., & Dutton, K. (2001). Do threatening
stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety?
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130(4), 681–
700. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11757875
Fox, E., Russo, R., & Georgiou, G. A. (2005). Anxiety modulates
the degree of attentive resources required to process
emotional faces. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral
Neuroscience,5(4), 396–404. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.
5.4.396
Gao, X., LoBue, V., Irving, J., & Harvey, T. (2017). The effect of
spatial frequency information and visual similarity in threat
detection. Cognition and Emotion,31(5), 912–922. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1180280
Gu, Y., Piper, W. T., Branigan, L. A., Vazey, E. M., Aston-Jones, G.,
Lin, L., LeDoux, J. E., & Sears, R. M. (2020). A brainstem-central
amygdala circuit underlies defensive responses to learned
threats. Molecular Psychiatry,25(3), 640–654. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41380-019-0599-6
Hedger, N., Gray, K. L. H., Garner, M., & Adams, W. J. (2016). Are
visual threats prioritized without awareness? A critical
review and meta-analysis involving 3 behavioral paradigms
and 2696 observers. Psychological Bulletin,142(9), 934–968.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000054
Holmes, A., Mogg, K., De Fockert, J., Nielsen, M. K., & Bradley, B.
P. (2014). Electrophysiological evidence for greater attention
to threat when cognitive control resources are depleted.
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience,14(2), 827–
835. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0212-4
Hout, M. C., Goldinger, S. D., & Brady, K. J. (2014). MM-MDS: A
multidimensional scaling database with similarity ratings
for 240 object categories from the massive memory
picture database. PLoS One,9(11), e112644. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0112644
Jamovi Project. (2022). Jamovi (Version 2.3 for Windows).
https://www.jamovi.org
Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Verschuere, B., & De Houwer, J. (2006).
Attention to threat in anxiety-prone individuals: Mechanisms
underlying attentional bias. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
30(5), 635–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9042-9
Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Verschuere, B., Van Damme, S., &
Wiersema, J. R. (2006). Components of attentional bias to
threat in high trait anxiety: Facilitated engagement,
impaired disengagement, and attentional avoidance.
Behaviour Research and Therapy,44(12), 1757–1771.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.12.011
Larson, C. L., Aronoff, J., & Stearns, J. J. (2007). The shape of
threat: Simple geometric forms evoke rapid and sustained
capture of attention. Emotion,7(3), 526–534. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.526
LeDoux, J. E. (2022). As soon as there was life, there was danger:
The deep history of survival behaviours and the shallower
history of consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,377(1844), 20210292.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0292
Liddell, B. J., Brown, K. J., Kemp, A. H., Barton, M. J., Das, P.,
Peduto, A., Gordon, E., & Williams, L. M. (2005). A direct
brainstem–amygdala–cortical ‘alarm’system for subliminal
signals of fear. NeuroImage,24(1), 235–243. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.08.016
LoBue, V. (2010). And along came a spider: An attentional bias
for the detection of spiders in young children and adults.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,107(1), 59–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.04.005
LoBue, V. (2014). Deconstructing the snake: The relative roles of
perception, cognition, and emotion on threat detection.
Emotion,14(4), 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035898
LoBue, V., Matthews, K., Harvey, T., & Stark, S. L. (2014). What
accounts for the rapid detection of threat? Evidence for an
advantage in perceptual and behavioral responding from
eye movements. Emotion,14(4), 816–823. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0035869
Mancini, C., Falciati, L., Maioli, C., & Mirabella, G. (2020).
Threatening facial expressions impact goal-directed
actions only if task-relevant. Brain Sciences,10(11), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10110794
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2017). In harm’sWay:
On preferential response to threatening stimuli. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin,43(11), 1519–1529. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167217722558
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2018). On the priori-
tized processing of threat in a dual implicit process model
of evaluation. Psychological Inquiry,29(1), 1–13. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1435680
Mather, M., & Sutherland, M. R. (2011). Arousal-Biased compe-
tition in perception and memory. Perspectives on
Psychological Science,6(2), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1745691611400234
McNally, R. J. (2018). Attentional bias for threat: Crisis or oppor-
tunity? Clinical Psychology Review,69,4–13. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.CPR.2018.05.005
VISUAL COGNITION 17

Mineka, S., & Öhman, A. (2002). Phobias and preparedness: The
selective, automatic, and encapsulated nature of fear.
Biological Psychiatry,52(10), 927–937. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0006-3223(02)01669-4
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2018). Anxiety and threat-related
attention: Cognitive-motivational framework and treatment.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences,22(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.001
Nesse, R. M. (2006). The smoke detector principle. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences,935(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb03472.x
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and prepared-
ness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning.
Psychological Review,108(3), 483–522. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0033-295X.108.3.483
Öhman, A., Soares, S. C., Juth, P., Lindström, B., & Esteves, F.
(2012). Evolutionary derived modulations of attention to
two common fear stimuli: Serpents and hostile humans.
Journal of Cognitive Psychology,24(1), 17–32. https://doi.
org/10.1080/20445911.2011.629603
Pakai-Stecina, D. T., Hout, M. C., Bali, C., & Zsido, A. N. (2023).
Can the processing of task-irrelevant threatening stimuli be
inhibited? –The role of shape and valence in the saliency of
threatening objects.
Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in
Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods,162(1-2), 8–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017
Reinecke, A., Becker, E. S., & Rinck, M. (2009). Selective visual
working memory in fear of spiders: The role of automaticity
and material-specificity. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,23(8),
1053–1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.07.007
Rigoulot, S., D’Hondt, F., Honoré, J., & Sequeira, H. (2012). Implicit
emotional processing in peripheral vision: Behavioral and
neural evidence. Neuropsychologia,50(12), 2887–2896.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.08.015
Sawaki, R., & Luck, S. J. (2010a). Capture versus suppression of
attention by salient singletons: Electrophysiological evi-
dence for an automatic attend-to-me signal. Attention,
Perception, & Psychophysics,72(6), 1455–1470. https://doi.
org/10.3758/APP.72.6.1455
Sawaki, R., & Luck, S. J. (2010b). Capture versus suppression of
attention by salient singletons: Electrophysiological evi-
dence for an automatic attend-to-me signal. Attention,
Perception, & Psychophysics,72(6), 1455–1470. https://doi.
org/10.3758/APP.72.6.1455
Sawaki, R., & Luck, S. J. (2011). Active suppression of distractors
that match the contents of visual working memory. Visual
Cognition,19(7), 956–972. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13506285.2011.603709
Subra, B., Muller, D., Fourgassie, L., Chauvin, A., & Alexopoulos,
T. (2017). Of guns and snakes: Testing a modern threat
superiority effect. Cognition and Emotion,32(1), 81–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1284044
Trujillo, N., Gómez, D., Trujillo, S., López, J. D., Ibáñez, A., & Parra,
M. A. (2021). Attentional bias during emotional processing:
Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence from an
emotional flanker task. PLoS One,16(4 April 2021),
e0249407. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249407
Van Strien, J. W., Christiaans, G., Franken, I. H. A., & Huijding, J.
(2016). Curvilinear shapes and the snake detection hypoth-
esis: An ERP study. Psychophysiology,53(2), 252–257.
https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12564
Williams,L.M.,Palmer,D.,Liddell,B.J.,Song,L.,&
Gordon,E.(2006). The ‘when’and ‘where’of perceiving
signals of threat versus non-threat. NeuroImage,31(1),
458–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.
009
Wolfe, J. M. (2021). Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of
visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,28(4), 1060–
1092. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9
Wolfe, J. M., Yee, A., & Friedman-Hill, S. R. (1992). Curvature is a
basic feature for visual search tasks. Perception,21(4), 465–
480. https://doi.org/10.1068/p210465
Zsido, A. N., Bali, C., Kocsor, F., & Hout, M. C. (2022). Task-irrele-
vant threatening information is harder to ignore than other
valences. Emotion,23(6), 1606–1617. https://doi.org/10.
1037/EMO0001189
Zsido, A. N., Bernath, L., Labadi, B., & Deak, A. (2018a). Count on
arousal: Introducing a new method for investigating the
effects of emotional valence and arousal on visual search
performance. Psychological Research,84(1), 1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0974-y
Zsido, A. N., Csatho, A., Matuz, A., Stecina, D., Arato, A., Inhof, O.,
& Darnai, G. (2019). Does threat have an advantage after all?
–Proposing a novel experimental design to investigate the
advantages of threat-relevant cues in visual processing.
Frontiers in Psychology,10.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2019.02217
Zsido, A. N., Deak, A., Losonci, A., Stecina, D., Arato, A., &
Bernath, L. (2018). Investigating evolutionary constraints
on the detection of threatening stimuli in preschool chil-
dren. Acta Psychologica,185, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.actpsy.2018.02.009
Zsido, A. N., Matuz, A., Inhof, O., Darnai, G., Budai, T., Bandi, S., &
Csatho, A. (2020). Disentangling the facilitating and hinder-
ing effects of threat-related stimuli –A visual search study.
British Journal of Psychology,111(4), 665–682. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjop.12429
Zsido, A. N., Matuz, A., Julia, B., Darnai, G., & Csathó, Á. (2023).
The interference of negative emotional stimuli on semantic
vigilance performance in a dual-task setting. Biologia Futura,
1,1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42977-023-00180-5
Zsido, A. N., Stecina, D. T., Cseh, R., & Hout, M. C. (2021). The
effects of task-irrelevant threatening stimuli on orienting-
and executive attentional processes under cognitive load.
British Journal of Psychology,113(2), 412–433. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjop.12540
Zsido, A. N., Stecina, D. T., & Hout, M. C. (2022). Task demands
determine whether shape or arousal of a stimulus modu-
lates competition for visual working memory resources.
Acta Psychologica,224, 103523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
actpsy.2022.103523
18 D. T. PAKAI-STECINA ET AL.