Literature DB >> 23978664

Shared and distinct factors driving attention and temporal processing across modalities.

Anne S Berry1, Xu Li1, Ziyong Lin1, Cindy Lustig2.   

Abstract

In addition to the classic finding that "sounds are judged longer than lights," the timing of auditory stimuli is often more precise and accurate than is the timing of visual stimuli. In cognitive models of temporal processing, these modality differences are explained by positing that auditory stimuli more automatically capture and hold attention, more efficiently closing an attentional switch that allows the accumulation of pulses marking the passage of time (Penney, Gibbon, & Meck, 2000). However, attention is a multifaceted construct, and there has been little attempt to determine which aspects of attention may be related to modality effects. We used visual and auditory versions of the Continuous Temporal Expectancy Task (CTET; O'Connell et al., 2009) a timing task previously linked to behavioral and electrophysiological measures of mind-wandering and attention lapses, and tested participants with or without the presence of a video distractor. Performance in the auditory condition was generally superior to that in the visual condition, replicating standard results in the timing literature. The auditory modality was also less affected by declines in sustained attention indexed by declines in performance over time. In contrast, distraction had an equivalent impact on performance in the two modalities. Analysis of individual differences in performance revealed further differences between the two modalities: Poor performance in the auditory condition was primarily related to boredom whereas poor performance in the visual condition was primarily related to distractibility. These results suggest that: 1) challenges to different aspects of attention reveal both modality-specific and nonspecific effects on temporal processing, and 2) different factors drive individual differences when testing across modalities.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attention; Distraction; Individual differences; Interval timing; Modality; Sustained attention

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23978664      PMCID: PMC3933517          DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.07.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)        ISSN: 0001-6918


  59 in total

1.  Paying attention to time as one gets older.

Authors:  C Lustig; W H Meck
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-11

2.  Chronic treatment with haloperidol induces deficits in working memory and feedback effects of interval timing.

Authors:  Cindy Lustig; Warren H Meck
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2004-11-18       Impact factor: 2.310

Review 3.  What makes us tick? Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing.

Authors:  Catalin V Buhusi; Warren H Meck
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 34.870

4.  Duration discrimination of empty and filled intervals marked by auditory and visual signals.

Authors:  S Grondin
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1993-09

5.  Escaping the recent past: which stimulus dimensions influence proactive interference?

Authors:  Kimberly S Craig; Marc G Berman; John Jonides; Cindy Lustig
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2013-07

6.  Modality differences in timing and temporal memory throughout the lifespan.

Authors:  Cindy Lustig; Warren H Meck
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2011-08-16       Impact factor: 2.310

7.  Functional MRI reveals the existence of modality and coordination-dependent timing networks.

Authors:  K J Jantzen; F L Steinberg; J A S Kelso
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Perception of the duration of auditory and visual stimuli in children and adults.

Authors:  Sylvie Droit-Volet; Stéphanie Tourret; John Wearden
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2004-07

9.  Visual sustained attention: image degradation produces rapid sensitivity decrement over time.

Authors:  K H Nuechterlein; R Parasuraman; Q Jiang
Journal:  Science       Date:  1983-04-15       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  FMRI investigation of cross-modal interactions in beat perception: audition primes vision, but not vice versa.

Authors:  Jessica A Grahn; Molly J Henry; J Devin McAuley
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-09-19       Impact factor: 6.556

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  The brain on silent: mind wandering, mindful awareness, and states of mental tranquility.

Authors:  David R Vago; Fadel Zeidan
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 5.691

Review 2.  Cholinergic genetics of visual attention: Human and mouse choline transporter capacity variants influence distractibility.

Authors:  Martin Sarter; Cindy Lustig; Randy D Blakely; Ajeesh Koshy Cherian
Journal:  J Physiol Paris       Date:  2016-07-09

3.  The cortical cholinergic system contributes to the top-down control of distraction: Evidence from patients with Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Kamin Kim; Martijn L T M Müller; Nicolaas I Bohnen; Martin Sarter; Cindy Lustig
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Dissociation of Neural Mechanisms for Intersensory Timing Deficits in Parkinson's Disease.

Authors:  Deborah L Harrington; Gabriel N Castillo; Jason D Reed; David D Song; Irene Litvan; Roland R Lee
Journal:  Timing Time Percept       Date:  2014-05-19

5.  Reconfiguration of striatal connectivity for timing and action.

Authors:  Deborah L Harrington; Marjan Jahanshahi
Journal:  Curr Opin Behav Sci       Date:  2016-04

6.  Disposed to distraction: genetic variation in the cholinergic system influences distractibility but not time-on-task effects.

Authors:  Anne S Berry; Elise Demeter; Surya Sabhapathy; Brett A English; Randy D Blakely; Martin Sarter; Cindy Lustig
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 7.  Neurochemical changes in basal ganglia affect time perception in parkinsonians.

Authors:  Francisco Magalhães; Kaline Rocha; Victor Marinho; Jéssica Ribeiro; Thomaz Oliveira; Carla Ayres; Thalys Bento; Francisca Leite; Daya Gupta; Victor Hugo Bastos; Bruna Velasques; Pedro Ribeiro; Marco Orsini; Silmar Teixeira
Journal:  J Biomed Sci       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 8.410

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.