Literature DB >> 17223092

Perceptual and cognitive task difficulty has differential effects on auditory distraction.

Alexandra Muller-Gass1, Erich Schröger.   

Abstract

When a task-irrelevant feature of an auditory stimulus varies at rare and unpredictable times, the processing of this change interferes with the processing of task-relevant stimulus information. The present study investigated whether this distraction effect is modulated by the difficulty of the auditory task. Event-related potentials (ERPs) and behavioral responses were recorded while subjects classified stimuli based on their temporal dimension. In one condition, the task was made more difficult by decreasing the perceptual discriminability (temporal distinctiveness) of the stimuli. In a second condition, the difficult task involved an increase in memory load: subjects were asked to assess the duration of the current compared to that of the previous stimulus. The occurrence of an infrequent task-irrelevant change in the pitch of the stimulus caused distraction in all task conditions. Following this change, performance deteriorated, and a distinct P3a component was visible in the ERP. Importantly, the extent of this distraction effect was significantly enhanced during the high memory load task, but not during the difficult perceptual task. It may be that the attentional resources afforded to the stimuli, rather than task difficulty, affected the extent of the distraction response. When the processing requirements of a task demand more highly focused attention for stimulus processing, the processing of the distracting information embedded within this stimulus may inadvertently also benefit from this attention.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17223092     DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Res        ISSN: 0006-8993            Impact factor:   3.252


  12 in total

1.  Cortical potentials in an auditory oddball task reflect individual differences in working memory capacity.

Authors:  Kate A Yurgil; Edward J Golob
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 4.016

2.  The electrophysiological effect of working memory load on involuntary attention in an auditory-visual distraction paradigm: an ERP study.

Authors:  Jie-Yu Lv; Ting Wang; Jiang Qiu; Si-Hai Feng; Shen Tu; Dong-Tao Wei
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Novelty detection is enhanced when attention is otherwise engaged: an event-related potential study.

Authors:  J Schomaker; M Meeter
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Suppression of irrelevant sounds during auditory working memory.

Authors:  Jyrki Ahveninen; Larry J Seidman; Wei-Tang Chang; Matti Hämäläinen; Samantha Huang
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  The modulation of auditory novelty processing by working memory load in school age children and adults: a combined behavioral and event-related potential study.

Authors:  Philipp Ruhnau; Nicole Wetzel; Andreas Widmann; Erich Schröger
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 3.288

6.  The advantage of ambiguity? Enhanced neural responses to multi-stable percepts correlate with the degree of perceived instability.

Authors:  Benjamin J Dyson
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2011-08-23       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  Focusing on attention: the effects of working memory capacity and load on selective attention.

Authors:  Lubna Ahmed; Jan W de Fockert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Low-level information and high-level perception: the case of speech in noise.

Authors:  Mor Nahum; Israel Nelken; Merav Ahissar
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 8.029

9.  Effects of visual working memory on brain information processing of irrelevant auditory stimuli.

Authors:  Jiagui Qu; Joshua D Rizak; Lun Zhao; Minghong Li; Yuanye Ma
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Response of the multiple-demand network during simple stimulus discriminations.

Authors:  Tanya Wen; Daniel J Mitchell; John Duncan
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.