Literature DB >> 23975153

Preparation interval and cue utilization in the prevention of distraction.

János Horváth1.   

Abstract

Maintaining a selective attention set allows us to efficiently perform sensory tasks despite the multitude of concurrent sensory stimuli. Unpredictably occurring, rare events nonetheless capture our attention, that is, we get distracted. The present study investigated the efficiency of control over distraction as a function of preparation time available before a forthcoming distracter. A random sequence of short and long tones (100 or 200 ms with 50-50 % probability) was presented. Independently from tone duration, occasionally (13.3 % of the time), the pitch of a tone was changed. Such rare pitch variants (distracters) usually lead to delayed and less precise discrimination responses, and trigger a characteristic series of event-related potentials (ERPs) reflecting the stages of distraction-related processing: starting with negative ERPs signaling the sensory registration of the distracter; a P3a-usually interpreted as a reflection of involuntary attention change and finally the so-called reorienting negativity signaling the restoration of the task-optimal attention set. In separate conditions, 663 or 346 ms before each tone (long or short cue-tone interval), a visual cue was presented, which signaled whether the forthcoming tone was a distracter (rare pitch variant), with 80 % validity. As reflected by reduced reaction time delays and P3a amplitudes, valid cues led to the prevention of distraction, but only in the long cue-tone interval condition. The analyses of the cue-related P3b and contingent negative variation showed that participants made more effort to utilize cue information to prevent distraction in the long cue-tone than in the short cue-tone interval condition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23975153     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-013-3681-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  34 in total

1.  Auditory distraction with different presentation rates: an event-related potential and behavioral study.

Authors:  Urte Roeber; Stefan Berti; Erich Schröger
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.708

2.  Distraction and facilitation--two faces of the same coin?

Authors:  Nicole Wetzel; Andreas Widmann; Erich Schröger
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Behavioral distraction by auditory novelty is not only about novelty: the role of the distracter's informational value.

Authors:  Fabrice B R Parmentier; Jane V Elsley; Jessica K Ljungberg
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2010-03-24

4.  Neural mechanisms of involuntary attention to acoustic novelty and change.

Authors:  C Escera; K Alho; I Winkler; R Näätänen
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  IFCN standards for digital recording of clinical EEG. International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.

Authors:  M R Nuwer; G Comi; R Emerson; A Fuglsang-Frederiksen; J M Guérit; H Hinrichs; A Ikeda; F J Luccas; P Rappelsburger
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-03

6.  Cognitive control of involuntary distraction by deviant sounds.

Authors:  Fabrice B R Parmentier; Maria Hebrero
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Behavioral distraction by auditory deviance is mediated by the sound's informational value. Evidence from an auditory discrimination task.

Authors:  Biqin Li; Fabrice B R Parmentier; Ming Zhang
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2013

8.  On how P300 amplitude varies with the utility of the eliciting stimuli.

Authors:  R Johnson; E Donchin
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1978-04

Review 9.  Contingent negative variation (CNV) and psychological processes in man.

Authors:  J J Tecce
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1972-02       Impact factor: 17.737

10.  Cognitive control of involuntary attention and distraction in children and adolescents.

Authors:  Nicole Wetzel; Erich Schröger
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2007-04-13       Impact factor: 3.252

View more
  3 in total

1.  Effects of explicit knowledge and predictability on auditory distraction and target performance.

Authors:  Caroline Max; Andreas Widmann; Erich Schröger; Elyse Sussman
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 2.997

2.  Reward favors the prepared: Incentive and task-informative cues interact to enhance attentional control.

Authors:  Kimberly S Chiew; Todd S Braver
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Auditory spatial attention gradients and cognitive control as a function of vigilance.

Authors:  Edward J Golob; Jeremy T Nelson; Jaelle Scheuerman; Kristen B Venable; Jeffrey R Mock
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 4.348

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.