Literature DB >> 12956588

The inability to ignore auditory distractors as a function of visual task perceptual load.

Donald J Tellinghuisen1, Erin J Nowak.   

Abstract

Using a response competition paradigm, we investigated the ability to ignore target response-compatible, target response-incompatible, and neutral visual and auditory distractors presented during a visual search task. The perceptual load model of attention (e.g., Lavie & Tsal, 1994) states that task-relevant processing load determines irrelevant distractor processing in such a way that increasing processing load prevents distractor processing. In three experiments, participants searched sets of one (easy search) or six (hard search) similar items. In Experiment 1, visual distractors influenced reaction time (RT) and accuracy only for easy searches, following the perceptual load model. Surprisingly, auditory distractors yielded larger distractor compatibility effects (median RT for incompatible trials minus median RT for compatible trials) for hard searches than for easy searches. In Experiments 2 and 3, during hard searches, consistent RT benefits with response-compatible and RT costs with response-incompatible auditory distractors occurred only for hard searches. We suggest that auditory distractors are processed regardless of visual perceptual load but that the ability to inhibit cross-modal influence from auditory distractors is reduced under high visual load.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12956588     DOI: 10.3758/bf03194817

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  18 in total

Review 1.  Twenty years of load theory-Where are we now, and where should we go next?

Authors:  Gillian Murphy; John A Groeger; Ciara M Greene
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-10

2.  Cross-modal perceptual load: the impact of modality and individual differences.

Authors:  Rajwant Sandhu; Benjamin James Dyson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Audio-visual object search is changed by bilingual experience.

Authors:  Sarah Chabal; Scott R Schroeder; Viorica Marian
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Effect of defocusing and of distracted attention upon recordings of the visual evoked potential.

Authors:  Eedy Mezer; Yonatan Bahir; Rina Leibu; Ido Perlman
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Attention capture is modulated in dual-task situations.

Authors:  Walter R Boot; James R Brockmole; Daniel J Simons
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-08

6.  Effects of visual attentional load on low-level auditory scene analysis.

Authors:  Benjamin J Dyson; Claude Alain; Yu He
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.282

7.  The dog's meow: asymmetrical interaction in cross-modal object recognition.

Authors:  Shlomit Yuval-Greenberg; Leon Y Deouell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-12-06       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Talking and driving: applications of crossmodal action reveal a special role for spatial language.

Authors:  Paul Atchley; Jeff Dressel; Todd C Jones; Rebecca A Burson; David Marshall
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2011-06-28

9.  Modulation of olfactory perception by visual cortex stimulation.

Authors:  Jahan B Jadauji; Jelena Djordjevic; Johan N Lundström; Christopher C Pack
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  A cognitive training intervention increases resting cerebral blood flow in healthy older adults.

Authors:  Jennifer L Mozolic; Satoru Hayasaka; Paul J Laurienti
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.