Literature DB >> 34342887

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

Edward J Golob1, Jeremy T Nelson2,3, Jaelle Scheuerman4, Kristen B Venable4,5,6, Jeffrey R Mock1.   

Abstract

Selection and effort are central to attention, yet it is unclear whether they draw on a common pool of cognitive resources, and if so, whether there are differences for early versus later stages of cognitive processing. This study assessed effort by quantifying the vigilance decrement, and spatial processing at early and later stages as a function of time-on-task. Participants performed an auditory spatial attention task, with occasional "catch" trials requiring no response. Psychophysiological measures included bilateral cerebral blood flow (transcranial Doppler), pupil dilation, and blink rate. The shape of attention gradients using reaction time indexed early processing, and did not significantly vary over time. Later stimulus-response conflict was comparable over time, except for a reduction to left hemispace stimuli. Target and catch trial accuracy decreased with time, with a more abrupt decrease for catch versus target trials. Diffusion decision modeling found progressive decreases in information accumulation rate and non-decision time, and the adoption of more liberal response criteria. Cerebral blood flow increased from baseline and then decreased over time, particularly in the left hemisphere. Blink rate steadily increased over time, while pupil dilation increased only at the beginning and then returned towards baseline. The findings suggest dissociations between resources for selectivity and effort. Measures of high subjective effort and temporal declines in catch trial accuracy and cerebral blood flow velocity suggest a standard vigilance decrement was evident in parallel with preserved selection. Different attentional systems and classes of computations that may account for dissociations between selectivity versus effort are discussed.
© 2021 Society for Psychophysiological Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DDM; Simon effect; attention capture; diffusion decision model; eye tracking; sustained attention; transcranial Doppler; vigilance decrement

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34342887      PMCID: PMC8419090          DOI: 10.1111/psyp.13903

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychophysiology        ISSN: 0048-5772            Impact factor:   4.348


  130 in total

1.  Top-down control over involuntary attention switching in the auditory modality.

Authors:  E Sussman; I Winkler; E Schröger
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-09

2.  Auditory distraction by duration and location deviants: a behavioral and event-related potential study.

Authors:  Urte Roeber; Andreas Widmann; Erich Schröger
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  2003-07

3.  Does the contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence to the auditory Simon effect increase with practice?

Authors:  Robert W Proctor; Chunhong Shao
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-05-16       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Neural activity before and after conscious perception in dichotic listening.

Authors:  Kate A Yurgil; Edward J Golob
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 3.139

5.  Multiple resources and mental workload.

Authors:  Christopher D Wickens
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.888

Review 6.  Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful.

Authors:  Joel S Warm; Raja Parasuraman; Gerald Matthews
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.888

7.  Preparation interval and cue utilization in the prevention of distraction.

Authors:  János Horváth
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-08-24       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  The spatial distribution of attention within and across objects.

Authors:  Andrew Hollingworth; Ashleigh M Maxcey-Richard; Shaun P Vecera
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-07-04       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Enhancing vigilance in operators with prefrontal cortex transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).

Authors:  Jeremy T Nelson; R Andy McKinley; Edward J Golob; Joel S Warm; Raja Parasuraman
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-12-09       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Concurrent working memory load may increase or reduce cognitive interference depending on the attentional set.

Authors:  Fernando G Luna; Maïka Telga; Miguel A Vadillo; Juan Lupiáñez
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.