PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Research Report
BEHAVIORAL GOALS CONSTRAIN THE SELECTION OF
VISUAL INFORMATION
Paul Maruff,1,2 James Danckert,1,2 Georgina Camplin,2 and Jon Currie2,3
1
School of Psychological Science, LaTrobe University, Melbourne, Australia; 2The Mental Health Research Institute of Victoria,
Melbourne, Australia; and 3Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Abstract—Although there is agreement that attentional processes are
limited, the necessary conditions for such limitation have not been
determined. We investigated whether behavioral goals are sufficient to
constrain the selection of visual information. In two tasks, subjects
were presented with targets and distractors that varied on two dimen-
sions (e.g., color and letter). In separate conditions, the subjects’ goal
was to identify only one dimension of the target while ignoring the sec-
ond dimension and ignoring the distractors. In both tasks, peripheral
distractors interfered with target selection only when the targets and
distractors differed on the goal-relevant dimension. When the goal was
changed, the pattern of interference from the same stimuli was
reversed, so that distractors affected target selection only according to
the new goal. These results suggest that behavioral goals constrain the
selection of visual information to a greater extent than the physical
characteristics of the visual information.
Psychological studies of visual attention commonly seek to deter-
mine the stage in the cognitive architecture at which the selection of
information is limited by measuring the effects of distractors on the
selection of targets (Allport, 1993; Broadbent, 1982; Duncan, 1980;
B.A. Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974; Kanwisher, Driver, & Machado, 1995;
Lavie & Cox, 1997). There is ongoing debate as to whether objects are
identified categorically before or after they are selected, although there
is still no agreement as to the location, function, or stage of any single
attentional “bottleneck” (Allport, 1993; Duncan, 1980; C.W. Eriksen
& Hoffman, 1973; Treisman & Gelade, 1980). Neurophysiological
studies in primates and neuroimaging studies in humans provide no
evidence of any single brain area responsible for limiting the selection
of visual information. Instead, these studies suggest that attention to
different stimulus characteristics takes place within parallel and dis-
tributed neurocognitive networks that may be reconfigured according
to task demands (Colby, 1991; Corbetta, Miezan, Dobmeyer, Shul-
man, & Peterson, 1991; Desimone & Duncan, 1995; Duncan,
Humphreys, & Ward, 1997; Gottlieb, Kusunoki, & Goldberg, 1998;
Mesulam, 1990). Thus, no single computational function may be suf-
ficient to encapsulate the full nature of selective processes.
Utilizing both neurophysiological and psychological findings, cog-
nitive neuroscientific models of attention propose that the ability to
ignore irrelevant information depends on interactions between data-
driven selection related to the physical properties of visual information
and top-down cognitive processes related to stimulus relevance,
expectancy, or previously learned associations (Allport, 1993; Danck-
ert, Maruff, Crowe, & Currie, 1998; Desimone & Duncan, 1995; Dun-
can et al., 1997; Lavie & Cox, 1997; Rafal & Henik, 1994). However,
Address correspondence to Paul Maruff, Neurophysiology and Neurovisu-
al Research Unit, Mental Health Research Institute of Victoria, Parkville, Vic-
toria, Australia 3052; e-mail: paul@neuro.mhri.edu.au.
522 Copyright © 1999 American Psychological Society
there is disagreement about the extent to which top-down processes
can constrain data-driven selection (see Allport, 1993, for a review).
For example, some authors state that the ability to ignore irrelevant
information is not absolute, and that top-down processes only modu-
late data-driven selection (Desimone & Duncan, 1995; Rafal & Henik,
1994; Yantis & Johnston, 1990). However, there is also evidence to
suggest that behavioral goals may completely constrain processes
associated with selective attention (Allport, 1993; Baylis, Driver, &
Rafal, 1993; Kanwisher et al., 1995; Tipper, Weaver, & Houghton,
1994).
The flanker task has been used extensively to study the ability to
select information while simultaneously ignoring irrelevant distractors
(C.W. Eriksen & Hoffman, 1973; C.W. Eriksen & Shultz, 1979; Flow-
ers & Wilcox, 1982; Miller, 1991). The simplest version of the flanker
task requires that a central target be identified with a specific manual
response. When the target (e.g., the letter E) appears, it is flanked by
distractors that are either congruent (e.g., E E E) or incongruent (e.g.,
O E O) with it. Although subjects are instructed to ignore flankers,
response times (RTs) to identify the target are faster when the flanker
and target are congruent than when they are incongruent (C.W. Erik-
sen & Hoffman, 1973; C.W. Eriksen & Shultz, 1979). The flanker-
compatibility effect (FCE) is so reliable that studies attempting to
isolate conditions under which flankers do not interfere with target
identification find it difficult to eliminate the FCE completely (Miller,
1991). Manipulating the time between target and flanker onset, the
perceptual load of the task, perceptual and response similarity between
targets and flankers, and spatial disparity between targets and flankers
alters the magnitude of the FCE but rarely eliminates it completely
(C.W. Eriksen & Hoffman, 1973; C.W. Eriksen & Shultz, 1979; Lavie
& Cox, 1997).
The current study investigated whether behavioral goals are suffi-
cient to constrain interference from distractors on target identification.
The task was modified so that targets and flankers varied simultane-
ously on two dimensions (color and letter). The same set of target-
flanker stimuli was presented in separate blocks of trials with alternate
behavioral goals. In one block, the goal was to identify target letters
while ignoring colors. In the other block, the goal was to identify tar-
get colors while ignoring letters. In all conditions, subjects were
instructed to ignore flankers. The set of flankers was identical to the
set of targets, but on a given trial the flankers could be congruent or
incongruent with the target on the goal-relevant or the goal-irrelevant
dimension. Examples of the different target-flanker pairings and their
classification with respect to behavioral goals are shown in Figure 1.
To ensure that any independence between the different dimensions
of the stimuli was not due to the more practiced status of letter read-
ing, we tested a second group of subjects using color and shape dimen-
sions. These dimensions were chosen because of their overlapping
representation in visual attentional systems and their equivalent effects
in psychophysical experiments (Corbetta et al., 1991). Examples of
these stimuli are shown in Figure 2.
VOL. 10, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 1999
 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

P. Maruff et al.

Fig. 1. Color-letter task. Group mean response times are plotted separately for the two behavioral goals (identify color and iden-
tify letter) as a function of target-flanker congruency: Targets and flankers were congruent on both the goal-relevant and goal-
irrelevant dimensions (CR/CI), congruent on the goal-relevant dimension and incongruent on the goal-irrelevant dimension (CR/II),
incongruent on the goal-relevant dimension and congruent on the goal-irrelevant dimension (IR/CI), and incongruent on both the
goal-relevant and goal-irrelevant dimensions (IR/II). Below the graph, examples of the corresponding target-flanker pairs are
shown. Filled stimuli represent red letters, and unfilled stimuli represent green letters.

For both tasks, we hypothesized that if behavioral goals were suf-
ficient to constrain data-driven selection, then flankers would interfere
with target identification only when they differed on the goal-relevant
dimension (Allport, 1993). Response-competition models typically
invoked to explain the FCE suggest that both dimensions of flanker
stimuli may activate their associated response codes (Miller, 1991).
Therefore, these models predicted that interference from flankers on
target identification would occur irrespective of subjects’ behavioral
goal.
METHOD
Twenty-four subjects with normal visual acuity and normal color
vision were tested after giving informed consent. Twelve subjects
were assigned to each task (color-letter task: mean age = 22.9 years,
SD = 2.5; color-shape task: mean age = 24.3 years, SD = 1.7).
The Microelectronic Laboratory (Schneider, 1988) software con-
trolled all stimulus presentation and data collection. Subjects sat 113
cm from the monitor with their head stabilized on a chin rest. Three
white horizontal bars, 0.35° in length, remained visible throughout
each block of trials, with targets appearing above the central bar.
Flankers appeared above the left or right bar with equal probability.
For the color-letter task, targets and flankers consisted of the upper-
case letters E and O colored red or green. The letter and color of the
stimuli varied randomly and independently. Examples of the four pos-
sible target and flanker pairs for a red E target are shown in Figure 1.
For the color-shape task, targets and flankers were filled circles or
squares colored red or green. Examples of the four possible target and
flanker pairs for a red square target are shown in Figure 2. For both
tasks, the horizontal edge-to-edge distance between targets and
flankers subtended 0.63°.
All stimuli remained visible until a response was made, and the
subsequent trial began 1,500 ms afterward. An incorrect response was
signaled by a tone, and the trial was rescheduled to the end of the
block.
For each task, there were two behavioral goals. For the color-letter
task, one goal was to identify the color of the target while ignoring its
form (i.e., respond either “red” or “green”). The second goal was to
identify the target letter while ignoring its color (i.e., respond either
“E” or “O”). For the color-shape task, the first goal was to identify the
color of the target while ignoring its shape, and the second goal was
to identify the shape of the target while ignoring its color (i.e.,
respond either “circle” or “square”). A training session of 16 trials
occurred prior to each block of trials. During training, each exemplar
from the goal-relevant dimension was mapped to a specific finger
(e.g., either “red” or “E” mapped to the index finger and either
“green” or “O” mapped to the middle finger for the color-letter task).
For each subject, the response mappings were randomized between
blocks.

VOL. 10, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 1999 523

 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Selection of Visual Information

Fig. 2. Color-shape task. Group mean response times are plotted separately for the two behavioral goals (identify color and iden-
tify shape) as a function of target-flanker congruency: Targets and flankers were congruent on both the goal-relevant and goal-
irrelevant dimensions (CR/CI), congruent on the goal-relevant dimension and incongruent on the goal-irrelevant dimension
(CR/II), incongruent on the goal-relevant dimension and congruent on the goal-irrelevant dimension (IR/CI), and incongruent on
both the goal-relevant and goal-irrelevant dimensions (IR/II). Below the graph, examples of the corresponding target-flanker pairs
are shown. Filled stimuli represent red shapes, and unfilled stimuli represent green shapes.

Experimental conditions were defined according to the congru-
ence between targets and flankers on both dimensions with reference
to the behavioral goal, yielding four conditions within each block.
Targets and flankers could be congruent on both the goal-relevant
and goal-irrelevant dimensions (CR/CI), congruent on the goal-rele-
vant dimension and incongruent on the goal-irrelevant dimension
(CR/II), incongruent on the goal-relevant dimension and congruent
on the goal-irrelevant dimension (IR/CI), and incongruent on both
the goal-relevant and goal-irrelevant dimensions (IR/II). (See Figs. 1
and 2.)
The different combinations of target and flanker colors and letters
(shapes) and spatial positioning gave 32 possible stimulus displays
that were equiprobable in each block of trials. Each subject complet-
ed four blocks of 40 trials for each behavioral goal in each task (i.e.,
color-letter or color-shape), with blocks randomized between subjects.
Subjects were tested in two testing sessions with rest periods of at least
2 min between blocks.
RESULTS
On each task, errors occurred on less than 1% of all trials. There
was no relationship between condition and the frequency of errors
under either behavioral goal for the color-letter task (χ2[3, N = 12] =
2.1, p > .05, for color and χ2[3, N = 12] = 1.3, p > .05, for letter) or for
the color-shape task (χ2[3, N = 12] = 3.96, p > .05, for color and χ2[3,
N = 12] = 3.12, p > .05, for shape). Error trials were excluded from
further analysis.
For each task, subjects’ mean RTs were submitted to a 2 (behav-
ioral goal: identify color vs. identify letter or shape) × 4 (target-flanker
congruency: CR/CI vs. CR/II vs. IR/CI vs. IR/II) profile analysis with
data collapsed across visual fields. The mean RT for each condition in
the color-letter task is shown in Figure 1. There was no significant
deviation from parallelism, Wilks Λ = 0.88, F(3, 9) = 0.48, p > .05, and
there was no significant effect of levels, F(1, 11) = 0.64, p > .05. How-
ever, the test of flatness was significant, Wilks Λ = 0.36, F(3, 9) = 6.4,
p < .01. Investigation of the main effect of flatness indicated no sig-
nificant difference between the CR/CI and CR/II conditions (t < 1), a
significant difference between the CR/II and IR/CI conditions (t[23] =
–4.42, p < .01, mean difference = 22.48 ms), and no significant differ-
ence between the IR/CI and IR/II conditions (t < 1).
The mean RT for each condition in the color-shape task is shown
in Figure 2. There was no significant deviation from parallelism, Wilks
Λ = 0.88, F(3, 11) = 0.48, p > .05. However, the test of levels showed
a significant effect, F(1, 11) = 21.65, p < .01, η2 = 0.66 (mean differ-
ence = 19.27), indicating that in general RTs to identify color were
faster than RTs to identify shape. There was a significant deviation
from flatness, Wilks Λ = 0.12, F(1, 11) = 22.57, p < .001. Investiga-
tion of the main effect of flatness indicated no significant difference
between the CR/CI and CR/II conditions (t[23] = –1.02, p > .05), a sig-
nificant difference between the CR/II and IR/CI conditions (t[23] =

524 VOL. 10, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 1999

 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
–6.34, p < .001, mean difference = 15.37 ms), and no significant dif-
ference between the IR/CI and IR/II conditions (t < 1).
DISCUSSION
The results indicate that interference on target identification from
peripheral flankers occurs only for the physical dimension of those tar-
gets and flankers that is relevant to the subjects’ current behavioral
goal (Figs. 1 and 2). For example, in the color-letter task, RTs to iden-
tify the target letter were approximately 25 ms faster when there was
congruency between the letter dimension of targets and flankers than
when targets and flankers were incongruent on the letter dimension.
The congruency of the goal-irrelevant dimension (i.e., color) did not
affect this pattern of RTs. Thus, there was no additional benefit for
RTs to identify targets when flankers were congruent on both the goal-
relevant and goal-irrelevant dimensions. Similarly, there was no addi-
tional cost for RTs to identify targets when flankers were incongruent
on both the goal-relevant and goal-irrelevant dimensions. When the
behavioral goal was reversed so that subjects were required to identi-
fy the target color, the pattern of interference from flankers also was
reversed. In this case, responses to targets depended only on the con-
gruency of the color of targets and flankers, irrespective of the con-
gruency of letters. The magnitude of the difference in RTs to identify
the colors when flankers were congruent and incongruent with targets
on the color dimension was also approximately 25 ms. These results
indicate that interference from flankers on target identification was
reversed when the behavioral goal of the task was altered, even though
the physical dimensions of targets and flankers did not change. There-
fore, the physical properties of the targets and flankers were not, by
themselves, sufficient for the interference from flankers to occur.
The results for the color-shape task were quantitatively and quali-
tatively similar to the results for the color-letter task. Although RTs to
identify color were generally faster than RTs to identify shape, inter-
ference from flankers occurred only for the goal-relevant dimension.
This replication suggests that the independence of selection was not
due to any specific physical property of stimuli used in the color-letter
task. Instead, the limits to selection were determined by the relation-
ship between targets and flankers on the dimension that was relevant
to the behavioral goal of the subject.
Previously, the FCE was eliminated by defining targets and
flankers according to different semantic categories (i.e., letters and
digits) with no probabilistic relationship between them (Paquet &
Craig, 1997). In addition, no FCE was observed when flankers and tar-
gets belonging to the same response category differed on perceptual
dimensions (Cohen & Shoup, 1997). Similarly, in an experiment com-
bining the flanker task with a visual search paradigm, the effect of dis-
tractors on the speed of visual search was eliminated when targets and
distractors were perceptually similar or when the number of distrac-
tors was increased. This suggested that under conditions of low per-
ceptual load, it becomes more difficult for individuals to ignore
distractors (Lavie & Cox, 1997). In the current study, we reversed
completely the effect of distractors on targets without manipulating
semantic category, probability, perceptual distinctiveness, or the per-
ceptual load of the task itself. Therefore, this study suggests behav-
ioral goals are sufficient to constrain the effect of distracting
information on selection. As flanker effects are reduced when the spa-
tial separation between targets and flankers is increased (B.A. Eriksen
& Eriksen, 1974; Miller, 1991), it will be important to determine
VOL. 10, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 1999
P. Maruff et al.
whether there are spatial limits to this goal-relevant selection of dis-
tracting information.
Two previous studies using different methodologies also found that
behavioral goals can constrain attentional processing in normal sub-
jects. Tipper et al. (1994) found that only the goal-relevant dimension
of multidimensional distractors gave rise to negative priming. Similar-
ly, Kanwisher et al. (1995) found that repetition blindness occurred
only for the attended dimension of targets that could vary on color and
letter. Taken together, the results of these two previous studies and
those of the current study suggest that the data-driven selection of visu-
al information, based on the physical properties of visual stimuli, can
be constrained completely by the individual’s current behavioral goal.
REFERENCES
Allport, A. (1993). Attention and control: Have we been asking the wrong questions? A
critical review of twenty-five years. In D.E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention
and performance XIV (pp. 183–218). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baylis, G.C., Driver, J., & Rafal, R.D. (1993). Visual extinction and stimulus repetition.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 453–466.
Broadbent, D.E. (1982). Task combination and selective intake of information. Acta Psy-
chologia, 50, 253–290.
Cohen, A., & Shoup, R.E. (1997). Perceptual dimensional constraints in selection process-
es. Cognitive Psychology, 32, 128–181.
Colby, C.L. (1991). The neuroanatomy of and neurophysiology of attention. Journal of
Child Neurology, 6, S90–S118.
Corbetta, M., Miezan, F.M., Dobmeyer, S., Shulman, G.L., & Peterson, S.E. (1991). Selec-
tive and divided attention during visual discrimination of shape, colour and speed:
Functional anatomy by positron emission tomography. Journal of Neuroscience, 11,
2383–2402.
Danckert, J., Maruff, P., Crowe, S., & Currie, J. (1998). Inhibitory processes in covert ori-
enting in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 12, 225–241.
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention.
Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222.
Duncan, J. (1980). The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli.
Psychological Review, 87, 272–300.
Duncan, J., Humphreys, G., & Ward, R. (1997). Competitive brain activity in visual atten-
tion. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7, 255–261.
Eriksen, B.A., & Eriksen, C.W. (1974). Effects of noise shapes upon the identification of
a target shape in a non-search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.
Eriksen, C.W., & Hoffman, J.E. (1973). The extent of processing noise elements during
selective encoding from visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 155–160.
Eriksen, C.W., & Shultz, D.W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous
flow conception and experimental results. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 249–263.
Flowers, J.H., & Wilcox, N. (1982). The effect of flanking context on visual classification:
The joint contribution of interactions at different processing levels. Perception &
Psychophysics, 32, 331–342.
Gottlieb, J.P., Kusunoki, M., & Goldberg, M.E. (1998). The representation of visual
salience in monkey parietal cortex. Nature, 391, 481–484.
Kanwisher, N., Driver, J., & Machado, L. (1995). Spatial repetition blindness is modulat-
ed by selective attention to color or shape. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 303–337.
Lavie, N., & Cox, S. (1997). On the efficiency of visual selective attention: Efficient visu-
al search leads to inefficient distractor rejection. Psychological Science, 8, 395–398.
Mesulam, M.M. (1990). Large scale neurocognitive networks and distributed processing
for attention, language and memory. Annals of Neurology, 28, 587–613.
Miller, J. (1991). The flanker compatibility effect as a function of visual angle, attention-
al focus, visual transients, and perceptual load: A search for boundary conditions.
Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 270–288.
Paquet, L., & Craig, G. (1997). Evidence for selective target processing with a low per-
ceptual load flankers task. Memory & Cognition, 25, 182–189.
Rafal, R.D., & Henik, A. (1994). The neurology of inhibition: Integrating controlled and
automatic processes. In D. Dagenbach & T. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in
attention, memory and language (pp. 1–50). San Diego: Academic Press.
Schneider, W. (1988). Microelectronic Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM-PC
compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20, 206–217.
Tipper, S.P., Weaver, B., & Houghton, G. (1994). Behavioural goals determine inhibitory
mechanisms of selective attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy, 47A, 809–840.
Treisman, A.M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive
Psychology, 12, 97–136.
Yantis, S., & Johnston, J. (1990). On the locus of visual selection: Evidence from focussed
attention tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
formance, 16, 135–149.
(RECEIVED 9/14/98; ACCEPTED 12/22/98)
525