Testing a priming account of the contingent-capture effect

In the contingent-capture protocol, singleton cues that have a target’s searched-for feature capture attention, but cues that do not have the target’s searched-for feature do not, a result labeled the contingent-capture effect. The contingent-capture effect is usually regarded as evidence for the observers’ ability to establish search settings for certain nonspatial features in a top-down manner. However, in recent years it has become increasingly clear that selection history is also a powerful mediator of attentional capture. In this vein, it has been suggested that contingent-capture effects could emerge as a result of (intertrial) priming: The idea is that features that have been encountered previously in the target are primed, so that cues that have these features automatically capture attention in a subsequent encounter. Here we tested a strong version of the priming account of the contingent-capture effect. We wanted to know whether cues that had target features would capture attention when the corresponding features were not part of the instructions (i.e., when the corresponding features were task-irrelevant). The results suggested that a strong version of the priming account of contingent capture is not supported. In five experiments, we found little evidence that the contingent-capture effect could be explained by (intertrial) priming of task-irrelevant features alone. These results show that processes beyond priming through task-irrelevant features are critical for contingent-capture effects.