Behavioral distraction by auditory deviance is mediated by the sound's informational value: Evidence from an auditory discrimination task

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 60, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 260-268

  Li, Biqin ^a,b   Parmentier, Fabrice B R ^c,d   Zhang, Ming ^a  

^a NORTHEAST NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b GUIZHOU NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c UNIVERSITAT DE LES ILLES BALEARS   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Distraction; Novelty; Oddball

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; EVOKED RESPONSE; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; SOUND; SOUND DETECTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; REACTION TIME; SOUND; SOUND LOCALIZATION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84881125810     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000196     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Andrs, P., Parmentier, F. B. R., & Escera, C. (2006). The effect of age on the involuntary capture of attention by irrelevant sounds: A test of the frontal hypothesis of aging. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2564-2568. (Pubitemid 44062586)
2. Aron, A. R. (2011). From reactive to proactive and selective control: Developing a richer model for stopping inappropriate responses. Biological Psychiatry, 69, e55-e68.
3. Bendixen, A., Prinz, W., Horvth, J., Trujillo-Barreto, N. J., & Schrçger, E. (2008). Rapid extraction of auditory feature contingencies. Neuroimage, 41, 1111-1119.
4. Bendixen, A., Roeber, U., & Schrçger, E. (2007). Regularity extraction and application in dynamic auditory stimulus sequences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1664-1677. (Pubitemid 47547869)
5. Bendixen, A., & Schrçger, E. (2008). Memory trace formation for abstract auditory features and its consequences in different attentional contexts. Biological Psychology, 78, 231-241.
6. Berti, S. (2008). Cognitive control after distraction: Eventrelated brain potentials (ERPs) dissociate between different processes of attentional allocation. Psychophysiology, 45, 608-620. (Pubitemid 351832091)
7. Berti, S. (2012). Automatic processing of rare versus novel auditory stimuli reveal different mechanisms of auditory change detection. Neuroreport, 23, 441-446.
8. Berti, S., Roeber, U., & Schrçger, E. (2004). Bottom-up influences on working memory: Behavioral and electrophysiological distraction varies with distractor strength. Experimental Psychology, 51, 249-257. (Pubitemid 39636753)
9. Berti, S., & Schrçger, E. (2001). A comparison of auditory and visual distraction: Behavioral and event-related indices. Cognitive Brain Research, 10, 265-273. (Pubitemid 32146583)
10. Berti, S., & Schrçger, E. (2003). Working memory controls involuntary attention switching: Evidence from an auditory distraction paradigm. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 1119-1122. (Pubitemid 36411610)
11. Berti, S., & Schrçger, E. (2004). Distraction effects in vision: Behavioral and event-related potential indices. Neuroreport, 15, 665-669. (Pubitemid 38457157)
12. Berti, S., & Schrçger, E. (2006). Visual distraction: A behavioral and event-related brain potential study in humans. Neuroreport, 17, 151-155. (Pubitemid 43100318)
13. Boll, S., & Berti, S. (2009). Distraction of task-relevant information processing by irrelevant changes in auditory, visual, and bimodal stimulus features: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Psychophysiology, 46, 645-654.
14. Bubic, A., von Cramon, D. Y., Jacobsen, T., Schrçger, E., & Schubotz, R. I. (2009). Violation of expectation: Neural correlates reflect bases of prediction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 155-168.
15. Escera, C., Alho, K., Winkler, I., & Ntnen, R. (1998). Neural mechanisms of involuntary attention to acoustic novelty and change. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 590-604. (Pubitemid 28484754)
16. Friedman, D., Cycowicz, Y. M., & Gaeta, H. (2001). The novelty P3: An event-related brain potential (ERP) sign of the brain's evaluation of novelty. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 25, 355-373. (Pubitemid 32624376)
17. Grimm, S., Schrçger, E., Bendixen, A., Bß, P., Roye, A., & Deouell, L. Y. (2008). Optimizing the auditory distraction paradigm: Behavioral and event-related potential effects in a lateralized multi-deviant approach. Clinical Neurophysiology, 119, 934-947.
18. Hackley, S. A. (2009). The speeding of voluntary reaction by a warning signal. Psychophysiology, 46, 225-233.
19. Horvth, J., Roeber, U., Bendixen, A., & Schrçger, E. (2008). Specific or general? The nature of attention set changes triggered by distracting auditory events. Brain Research, 1229, 193-203.
20. Horvth, J., Sussman, E., Winkler, I., & Schrçger, E. (2011). Preventing distraction: Assessing stimulus-specific and general effects of the predictive cueing of deviant auditory events. Biological Psychology, 87, 35-48.
21. Horvth, J., & Winkler, I. (2010). Distraction in a continuousstimulation detection task. Biological Psychology, 83, 229-238.
22. Horvth, J., Winkler, I., & Bendixen, A. (2008). Do NI/MMN, P3a, and RON form a strongly coupled chain reflecting the three stages of auditory distraction? Biological Psychology, 79, 139-147.
23. Hçlig, C., & Berti, S. (2010). To switch or not to switch: Brain potential indices of attentional control after task-relevant and task-irrelevant changes of stimulus features. Brain Research, 1345, 164-175.
24. Jankowiak, S., & Berti, S. (2007). Behavioral and event-related potential distraction effects with regularly occurring auditory deviants. Psychophysiology, 44, 79-85. (Pubitemid 46103569)
25. Jentzsch, I., Leuthold, H., & Ridderinkhof, R. (2004). Beneficial effects of ambiguous precsues: Parallel motor preparation or reduced premotoric processing time? Psychophysiology, 41, 231-244. (Pubitemid 38524095)
26. Ljungberg, J. K., & Parmentier, F. B. R. (2012a). The impact of intonation and valence on objective and subjective attention capture by auditory alarms. Human Factors, 54, 826-837. doi: 10.1177/0018720812438613
27. Ljungberg, J. K., & Parmentier, F. B. R. (2012b). Cross-modal distraction by deviance: Functional similarities between the auditory and tactile modalities. Experimental Psychology, 59, 355-363. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000164
28. Ljungberg, J. K., Parmentier, F. B. R., Leiva, A., & Vega, N. (2012). The informational constraints of behavioral distraction by unexpected sounds: The role of event information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 38, 1461-1468. doi: 10.1037/a0028149
29. Mager, R., Falkenstein, M., Stçrmer, R., Brand, S., Mller-Spahn, F., & Bullinger, A. H. (2005). Auditory distraction in young and middle-aged adults: A behavioural and eventrelated potential study. Journal of Neural Transmission, 112, 1165-1176. (Pubitemid 41215921)
30. Muller-Gass, A., & Schrçger, E. (2007). Perceptual and cognitive task difficulty has differential effects on auditory distraction. Brain Research, 1136, 169-177. (Pubitemid 46209082)
31. Munka, L., & Berti, S. (2006). Examining task-dependencies of different attentional processes as reflected in the P3a and reorienting negativity components of the human eventrelated brain potential. Neuroscience Letters, 396, 177-181. (Pubitemid 43331026)
32. Niemi, P., & Ntnen, R. (1981). Foreperiod and simple reaction time. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 133-162.
33. Parmentier, F. B. R. (2008). Towards a cognitive model of distraction by auditory novels: The role of involuntary attention capture and semantic processing. Cognition, 109, 345-362.
34. Parmentier, F. B. R., & Andrs, P. (2010). The involuntary capture of attention by sound: Novelty and post-novelty distraction in young and older adults. Experimental Psychology, 57, 68-76.
35. Parmentier, F. B. R., Elford, G., Escera, C., Andres, P., & San Miguel, I. (2008). The cognitive locus of distraction by acoustic novelty in the cross-modal oddball task. Cognition, 106, 408-432. (Pubitemid 350236140)
36. Parmentier, F. B. R., Elsley, J. V., Andres, P., & Barcel, F. (2011). Why are auditory novels distracting? Contrasting the roles of novelty, violation of expectation and stimulus change. Cognition, 119, 374-380.
37. Parmentier, F. B. R., Elsley, J. V., & Ljungberg, J. K. (2010). Behavioral distraction by auditory novelty is not only about novelty: The role of the distracter's informational value. Cognition, 115, 504-511.
38. Parmentier, F. B. R., Ljungberg, J. K., Elsley, J. V., & Lindkvist, M. (2011). A behavioral study of distraction by vibrotactile novelty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 37, 1134-1139.
39. Parmentier, F. B. R., Maybery, M. T., & Elsley, J. V. (2010). The involuntary capture of attention by novel feature pairings: A study of voice-location integration in auditory sensory memory. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 279-284.
40. Parmentier, F. B. R., & Turner, J. (2013). Auditory distraction: A dual contribution to the involuntary semantic processing of unexpected spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0031550
41. Parmentier, F. B. R., Turner, J., & Elsley, J. V. (2011). Distraction by auditory novelty: The course and aftermath of novelty and semantic effects. Experimental Psychology, 58, 92-101.
42. Parmentier, F. B. R., Turner, J., & Perez, L. (2013, January). A dual contribution to the involuntary semantic processing of unexpected spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0031550
43. Rinne, T., Srkka, A., Degerman, A., Schrçger, E., & Alho, K. (2006). Two separate mechanisms underlie auditory change detection and involuntary control of attention. Brain Research, 1077, 135-143.
44. Roeber, U., Berti, S., Mller, D., Widmann, A., & Schrçger, E. (2009). Disentangling effects of auditory distraction and of stimulus-response sequence. Psychophysiology, 46, 425-438.
45. Roeber, U., Berti, S., & Schrçger, E. (2003). Auditory distraction with different presentation rates: An even-related potential and behavioral study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114, 341-349. (Pubitemid 36136107)
46. Roeber, U., Berti, S., Widmann, A., & Schrçger, E. (2005). Response repetition vs. response change modulates behavioral and electrophysiological effects of distraction. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 451-456. (Pubitemid 40269249)
47. Roeber, U., Widmann, A., & Schrçger, E. (2003). Auditory distraction by duration and location deviants: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 347-357. (Pubitemid 36860060)
48. Rosenbaum, D. A., & Kornblum, S. (1982). A priming method for investigating the selection of motor responses. Acta Psychologica, 51, 223-243.
49. Sabri, M., Liebenthal, E., Waldron, E. J., Medler, D. A., & Binder, J. R. (2006). Attentional modulation in the detection of irrelevant deviance: A simultaneous ERP/fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 689-700.
50. SanMiguel, I., Linden, D., & Escera, C. (2010). Attention capture by novel sounds: Distraction versus facilitation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 481-515.
51. SanMiguel, I., Morgan, H. M., Klein, C., Linden, D., & Escera, C. (2010). On the functional significance of Novelty-P3: Facilitation by unexpected novel sounds. Biological Psychology, 83, 143-152.
52. Schrçger, E. (1996). A neural mechanism for involuntary attention shifts to changes in auditory stimulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 527-539.
53. Schrçger, E. (1997). On the detection of auditory deviations: A pre-attentive activation model. Psychophysiology, 34, 245-257.
54. Schrçger, E., Bendixen, A., Trujillo-Barreto, N. J., & Roeber, U. (2007). Processing of abstract rule violations in audition. PLoS One, 2, e1131.
55. Schrçger, E., Giard, M.-H., & Wolff, C. (2000). Auditory distraction: Event-related potential and behavioral indices. Clinical Neuropsychology, 111, 1450-1460. (Pubitemid 30445179)
56. Schrçger, E., & Wolff, C. (1998). Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of task-irrelevant sound change: A new distraction paradigm. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 71-87. (Pubitemid 28419440)
57. Sussman, E., Winkler, I., & Schrçger, E. (2003). Top-down control over involuntary attention switching in the auditory modality. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 630-637. (Pubitemid 37544936)
58. van Zuijen, T. L., Simoens, V. L., Paavilainen, P., Ntnen, R., & Tervaniemi, M. (2006). Implicit, intuitive and explicit knowledge of abstract regularities in a sound sequence: An event-related brain potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1292-1303. (Pubitemid 44400747)
59. Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2009). Automaticity of cognitive control: Goal priming in response-inhibition paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 35, 1381-1388.
60. Wetzel, N., Berti, S., Widmann, A., & Schrçger, E. (2004). Distraction and reorientation in children: A behavioral and ERP study. Neuroreport, 15, 1355-1358. (Pubitemid 38757280)
61. Wetzel, N., & Schrçger, E. (2007). Cognitive control of involuntary attention and distraction in children and adolescents. Brain Research, 1155, 134-146. (Pubitemid 46891440)
62. Wetzel, N., Widmann, A., Berti, S., & Schrçger, E. (2006). The development of involuntary and voluntary attention from childhood to adulthood. A combined behavioral and eventrelated potential study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117, 2191-2203. (Pubitemid 44333275)
63. Wetzel, N., Widmann, A., & Schrçger, E. (2009). The cognitive control of distraction by novelty in children aged 7-8 and adults. Psychophysiology, 46, 607-616.
64. Wetzel, N., Widmann, A., & Schrçger, E. (2011). Attentional capture and distraction -uninformative novel sounds capture attention but do not necessarily impair performance. Poster presented at International Conference on Cognitive Neuroscience XI (ICON), Palma de Mallorca, Spain, September, 2011.
65. Wetzel, N., Widmann, A., & Schrçger, E. (2012). Distraction and facilitation -two faces of the same coin? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 664-674. doi: 10.l037/a0025856