Literature DB >> 33155125

Are self-caused distractors easier to ignore? Experiments with the flanker task.

CiJun Gao1, Davood G Gozli2.   

Abstract

Four experiments are reported that investigate the relationship between action-outcome learning and the ability to ignore distractors. Each participant performed 600 acquisition trials, followed by 200 test trials. In the acquisition phase, participants were presented with a fixed action-outcome contingency (e.g., Key #1 ➔ green distractors), while that contingency was reversed in the test phase. In Experiments 1-3, a distractor feature depended on the participants' action. In Experiment 1, actions determined the color of the distractors; in Experiment 2, they determined the target-distractor distance; in Experiment 3, they determined target-distractor compatibility. Results suggest that with the relatively simple features (color and distance), exposure to action-outcome contingencies changed distractor cost, whereas with the complex or relational feature (target-distractor compatibility), exposure to the contingencies did not affect distractor cost. In Experiment 4, the same pattern of results was found (effect of contingency learning on distractor cost) with perceptual sequence learning, using visual cues ("X" vs. "O") instead of actions. Thus, although the mechanism of associative learning may not be unique to actions, such learning plays a role in the allocation of attention to task-irrelevant events.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Associative learning; Flanker task; Forward model; Ideomotor theory; Sensory attenuation; Sensory preactivation; Visual attention

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33155125     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-020-02170-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  38 in total

1.  Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation.

Authors:  S J Blakemore; D M Wolpert; C D Frith
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 2.  Why can't you tickle yourself?

Authors:  S J Blakemore; D Wolpert; C Frith
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2000-08-03       Impact factor: 1.837

3.  Reduced gamma-band coherence to distorted feedback during speech when what you say is not what you hear.

Authors:  Judith M Ford; Max Gray; William O Faustman; Theda H Heinks; Daniel H Mathalon
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.997

4.  Evidence for a role of action in colour perception.

Authors:  Aline Bompas; J Kevin O'Regan
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.490

5.  More evidence for sensorimotor adaptation in color perception.

Authors:  Aline Bompas; J Kevin O'Regan
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Attentional capture does not depend on feature similarity, but on target-nontarget relations.

Authors:  Stefanie I Becker; Charles L Folk; Roger W Remington
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2013-04-04

7.  A new look at sensory attenuation. Action-effect anticipation affects sensitivity, not response bias.

Authors:  Pedro Cardoso-Leite; Pascal Mamassian; Simone Schütz-Bosbach; Florian Waszak
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2010-11-30

8.  Cortical responsiveness during talking and listening in schizophrenia: an event-related brain potential study.

Authors:  J M Ford; D H Mathalon; S Kalba; S Whitfield; W O Faustman; W T Roth
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2001-10-01       Impact factor: 13.382

9.  Suppression of the auditory N1 event-related potential component with unpredictable self-initiated tones: evidence for internal forward models with dynamic stimulation.

Authors:  Pamela Bäss; Thomas Jacobsen; Erich Schröger
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2008-06-25       Impact factor: 2.997

10.  Motor-induced suppression of the auditory cortex.

Authors:  Sheye O Aliu; John F Houde; Srikantan S Nagarajan
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.225

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.