Again, to be stimulus-driven is a very robust effect. It is remarkable that attention has not so much effect on this. Only when cued (distracted) with open space there is an effect, which can be regarded as an attack on perception.
Simultaneous distraction including an open and free room doesn't keep people from doing their stimulus-driven ways when they are busy with the task. Which means we use attention in a shifting manner while we do not lose the referent coding system (supposing a zoom lens). This cannot be. Fact seems to be that attentional processes and perceptual processes are independent of each other. Even if they work together.
Conjunction in time gives more activation to perception, immediate conjunction gives more activation to attention. Although it is so that the constraint is a stable percept in the first case and the possibility that attention can be slowed down in the second.
Even how, I find it odd that reaction can be normal in the one case and not so in the other. Perception seems to be a very basic process. So basic that a general process as attention does not have control on it, when we act accordingly with it by our motor system.
I link this all to our motivation system. Too complex problems are maybe hold at a distance. Which means our worldview is not dependent on it. Dilemma is searching for a personality while snags are made for selection and traps to make "other" groups (at least in thoughts).
I wonder if a basic process as perception can be disrupted in an easy way. What are the life-demands into perception. There's more to read about the rationality of perception. If perception returns and connects it could be more important than attention. Even if without straight attention fundamental problems arise. Perception seems to be less vulnerable by will, effort and reference than attention. Which is bound to simplicity in the differences it makes.