A comparison of auditory and visual distraction effects: behavioral and event-related indices

2013

Exp Brain Res

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 eventrelated 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 cuetone interval condition.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Preparation interval and cue utilization in the prevention of distraction

2013

Exp Brain Res

“…As in previous studies (e.g., Berti and Schröger, 2001;Horváth, 2014Horváth, , 2016Volosin and Horváth, 2014), tone onsets were preceded by a negative-going ERP trend, suggesting that participants exploited the constant SOA to prepare for the tones. Tone onsets elicited the succession of P1, N1 and P2 waveforms, which were superimposed on the negative trend.…”

Section: Erpssupporting

confidence: 75%

“…As in previous studies using fixed inter-onset-intervals in duration-or direction discrimination tasks (e.g., Berti and Schröger, 2001;Horváth, 2014Horváth, , 2016Volosin and Horváth, 2014), the stimulus onset was preceded by a negative ERP trend. The steepness of this pre-stimulus trend was calculated as the difference of the average amplitudes measured at in the 200-150 ms and the 50-0 ms intervals preceding tone onsets in each condition.…”

Section: Eeg-recording and Analysissupporting

confidence: 64%

Sound offset-related brain potentials show retained sensory processing, but increased cognitive control activity in older adults

Gaál

Volosin

2017

Neurobiology of Aging

This is the accepted version of Horváth, J., Gaál, Z. A., & Volosin, M. (2017). Sound offset-related brain potentials show retained sensory processing, but increased cognitive control activity in older adults. Neurobiology of Aging, 57,[232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243][244][245][246] AbstractIt has been hypothesized that age-related hearing loss is caused not only by peripheral, but also central changes in the auditory system. Many studies utilized event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited by sound onsets to characterize age-related differences in central auditory processing. Age-related ERP enhancements in such studies have often been interpreted in terms of elevated sensitivity to auditory stimulation. Such ERPs, however, comprise various components reflecting different aspects of auditory and task-related processing. The composition of the waveforms may considerably differ for ERPs elicited by other auditory events. In the present study ERPs elicited by tone-offsets were used to characterize processing differences between younger and older adults in a short-go, tone-duration discrimination paradigm. Whereas the onset-related auditory ERP was enhanced in the older adult group, no age-related differences were found in the offset-related auditory ERPs observable at temporal electrodes. In older adults, however, offset-related processing was dominated by an N2 that could reflect enhanced cognitive control activities. Because N2 was present regardless discrimination difficulty, younger adults may have framed the task as offset-detection, whereas older adults represented the task as "genuine" discrimination.

“…In studies using the distraction paradigm, the comparison of ERPs to deviants and standards showed a consistent pattern of responses assumed to reflect the three stages of distraction-related processing summarized above (e.g., Schröger & Wolff, 1998a;Berti & Schröger, 2001, Roeber, Berti, Schröger, 2003. Following the deviance-onset, processing at the sensory filter is reflected by frontal and central negative differences between 100-200 ms, a superposition of an N1-effect (Näätänen & Picton, 1987), mismatch negativity (Näätänen, Gaillard & Mäntysalo, 1978, for a recent summary see Winkler, 2007), and possibly N2(b) (Näätänen, Simson, & Loveless, 1982;Ritter et al, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Sensory ERP effects in auditory distraction: did we miss the main event?

2013

Psychological Research

Event-related potentials (ERPs) offer unique insights into processes related to involuntary attention changes triggered by rare, unpredictably occurring sensory events, that is, distraction. Contrasting ERPs elicited by distracters and frequent standard stimuli in oddball paradigms allowed the formulation of a three-stage model describing distractionrelated processing: First, the distracting event is highlighted by a sensory filter. Second, attention is oriented towards the event, and finally, the the task-optimal attention set is restored, or task priorities are changed. Although this model summarizes how distracting stimulus information is processed, not much is known about the cost of taking this exceptional route of processing. The present study demonstrates the impact of distraction on sensory processing. Participants performed a Go/NoGo tone-duration discrimination task, with infrequent pitch distracters. In the two parts of the experiment the duration-response mapping was reversed. Contrasts of distracter and standard ERPs revealed higher P3a-and reorienting negativity amplitudes for short than for long tones, independently from response type. To understand the cause of these asymmetries, short vs. long ERP contrasts were calculated. The ERP pattern showed that short standards elicited an attention-dependent offset-response, which was abolished for short distracters. That is, the apparent P3a-and RON enhancements were caused by the removal of a task-related attentional sensory enhancement. This shows that the disruption of task-optimal attention set precedes the elicitation of the P3a, which suggests that P3a does not reflect a process driving the initial distraction-related attention change.3