Cognitive conflict and inhibition in primed dichotic listening

Proactive and reactive sequential effects on selective attention

“…Thus, in a trial where /ga/ is the prime syllable and /ga-ba/ is the dichotic target, the participants were more likely to select /ba/ than to select /ga/. This behavioral effect is similar to what has been reported in previous studies (Saetrevik & Hugdahl, 2007a, 2007bSaetrevik & Specht, 2009). There were 9.76% (SD = 7.89%) errors when the prime was repeated, and 9.05% (SD = 4.43%) errors when the prime was not repeated (not significantly different, at t = 0.59, p = .57).…”

“…In this account, adjusting network weights in order to minimize response-processing conflict constitutes a reactive mechanism. Such a mechanism was indicated in the aforementioned fMRI study (Saetrevik & Specht, 2009), where right ventrolateral gyrus activation increased on prime ignored trials, which may be associated with successful inhibition of the prime, while dorsal medial frontal and left frontal cortex activation increased on prime reported trials, which may be associated with cognitive conflict and more effortful response selection. The above account thus includes both proactive and reactive mechanisms, in contrast with competing accounts that attempt to explain sequential attention effects as being due to proactive mechanisms alone (e.g.…”

“…The inhibition involved in ignoring the prime may have a residual effect that influences the processing of the dichotic target stimuli, thus constituting a proactive mechanism. A recent fMRI study using the primed dichotic listening task (Saetrevik & Specht, 2009), supported this model by showing that medial frontal cortex activation increased on trials where one of the dichotic syllables repeats the distractor prime, indicating increased cognitive conflict when attending a recently ignored stimulus. At the time of target onset, the representation of the repeated stimulus is less activated than the representation of the non-repeated target stimulus, which manifests as a response bias for selecting the non-repeated stimulus.…”

“…Research on trial-to-trial modulation of responses has shown that subtle changes in a task context or task behavior can influence subsequent response times, response choices and activated brain regions (Saetrevik & Specht, 2009, 2012Weissman, Roberts, Visscher, & Woldorff, 2006). There are converging findings from different experimental settings, including task switching (Kiesel et al, 2010;Monsell, 2003;Yeung, Nystrom, Aronson, & Cohen, 2006), negative priming (de Fockert, Mizon, & D'Ubaldo, 2010;Egner & Hirsch, 2005) and conflict adaptation (Danielmeier & Ullsperger, 2011;King, Korb, von Cramon, & Ullsperger, 2010;Ullsperger, Bylsma, & Botvinick, 2005), although the exact mechanisms might vary across paradigms.…”

“…The primed dichotic listening task (Saetrevik & Hugdahl, 2007a, 2007bSaetrevik & Specht, 2009) has shown effects indicating sequential modulation of attention in an ambiguous response selection situation. The task instructs participants not to pay attention to a distractor prime syllable presented binaurally (equally to both ears) and to report the most clearly perceived syllable from a subsequent dichotic pair of target syllables (different syllables presented simultaneously, one to each ear).…”