Preparation interval and cue utilization in the prevention of distraction

Abstract

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.

Reward favors the prepared: Incentive and task-informative cues interact to enhance attentional control.

“…Regarding effects of the task-informative cue, the present results are similar to prior work in that RTs decreased under informative versus uninformative cue, but the effect of informative cues on control appeared to depend on cue timing and combination with incentive cue. Such variability in effects on performance is consistent with evidence that the value of nonincentive cues as control signals may be altered within rewarding contexts (Braem et al, 2012;Muhle-Karbe & Krebs, 2012); this variability is also in line with recent studies indicating that informative cues may engage differing control strategies depending on task demands (Bugg & Smallwood, 2014) and may be utilized more at relatively long versus short cue-target intervals (Horváth, 2013). Indeed, a critical point we believe has not yet been fully appreciated, is that the prior literature actually reveals mixed results regarding whether taskinformative cues can be used to reduce interference as well as speed RTs (i.e., reflecting enhanced control).…”

Effects of explicit knowledge and predictability on auditory distraction and target performance

“…In the current study we tested whether explicit knowledge about the occurrence of a distracting event, but without explicit cueing, would similarly abate distraction effects. That is, would knowledge about the irrelevance of an upcoming event, its predictability, be enough to abate distracting effects; or was there something specific about temporal cueing (e.g., with visual or other input occurring prior to each target) that primarily influenced the distraction effect observed in previous studies (Horváth et al, 2011; Horváth & Bendixen, 2012; Horváth, 2013; Sussman et al, 2003; Volosin & Horváth, 2014). Thus, a second issue addressed by the current paradigm was whether stimulus regularity of the sound input (predictability) would act as a form of implicit cueing, speeding reaction time to targets, and facilitating behavioral responses.…”

Knowledge of sequence structure prevents auditory distraction: An ERP study

“…Furthermore, even if the cuedistracter separation allowed both groups to process cue information in time, the utilization of this information depends on the willingness of participants to do so. The amount of effort needed to process cue information in the short time available may reduce the participants' motivation to utilize cue information at all (Horváth, 2013).…”