There are two opposite views about attentional capture theory. One view is that attentional capture is not affected by the current task, but relies on significant extent of interference stimuli relative to the target stimuli. The attentional capture effect of shape interference stimuli is poor. Another view is that attentional capture is conditional capture. It is carried out under a top-down cognitive regulation. In addition, with regard to visual processing capacity and mechanisms of deaf people, researchers proposed “the change of visual attention resources allocation” hypothesis for deaf people. They thought that deaf people attempt to allocate more visual attentional resources to the margin of visual area in the processing of visual perception; however, the hearing-normal people tend to allocate more visual attentional resources to the central vision area. Introducing working memory load and view region variables, this study selected deaf and hearing-normal people, using eye tracker to investigate the attentional capture of shape interference stimuli on visual processing. It also compared the difference of deaf and hearing-normal people in visual processing and mechanism under the attentional capture experimental paradigm. This study used 2 (group) × 2 (working memory load) × 2 (shape distracter) × 3 (visual region) multi-factor mixed experiment design. Between-subject variable is category of subjects (deaf people, hearing-normal people), while within-subject variables are working memory load (high working memory load, low working memory load), shape distracter (shape distracter, no-shape distracter), visual region (1° viewing angle, 6° viewing angle, 11° viewing angle). The results showed that: (1) Although the shape distracter did not affect the cognitive performance of subjects’ visual processing, the subject's eye movement patterns was changed due to the change of working memory load. Under the condition of high work memory load, the number of fixation of shape distracter was higher than that of no-shape distracter; (2) The completion of subjects’ visual processing tasks was affected by the working memory load and visual region. The subjects’ eye movement patterns were different in different visual regions; (3) Deaf people had some disadvantages in visual processing in the high working memory load, but the attentional capture effects are the same for both deaf and hearing-normal people in the information processing of different visual regions and the shape of the interference. From the theories of attentional capture, this study suggests that the shape of the interference stimuli can capture attention when the cognitive control resources are decreased. Attentional capture was carried out under the top-down regulation of cognition. From visual processing capacity and mechanism of deaf people, this study suggests that under the attentional capture experimental paradigm, the information processing of margin visual area and central visual area of deaf people is the same as that of hearing-normal people. "Visual attention resource allocation change" hypothesis needs further verification. The innovations of this study are: (1) testified the theories of attentional capture; (2) compared the similarities and differences of visual processing capacity and mechanisms in deaf and hearing normal people.