A common source of attention for auditory and visual tracking

Tasks that require tracking visual information reveal the severe limitations of our capacity to attend to multiple objects that vary in time and space. Although these limitations have been extensively characterized in the visual domain, very little is known about tracking information in other sensory domains. Does tracking auditory information exhibit characteristics similar to those of tracking visual information, and to what extent do these two tracking tasks draw on the same attention resources? We addressed these questions by asking participants to perform either single or dual tracking tasks from the same (visual–visual) or different (visual–auditory) perceptual modalities, with the difficulty of the tracking tasks being manipulated across trials. The results revealed that performing two concurrent tracking tasks, whether they were in the same or different modalities, affected tracking performance as compared to performing each task alone (concurrence costs). Moreover, increasing task difficulty also led to increased costs in both the single-task and dual-task conditions (load-dependent costs). The comparison of concurrence costs between visual–visual and visual–auditory dual-task performance revealed slightly greater interference when two visual tracking tasks were paired. Interestingly, however, increasing task difficulty led to equivalent costs for visual–visual and visual–auditory pairings. We concluded that visual and auditory tracking draw largely, though not exclusively, on common central attentional resources.     

The modality effect of ego depletion: Auditory task modality reduces ego depletion

An initial act of self‐control that impairs subsequent acts of self‐control is called ego depletion. The ego depletion phenomenon has been observed consistently. The modality effect refers to the effect of the presentation modality on the processing of stimuli. The modality effect was also robustly found in a large body of research. However, no study to date has examined the modality effects of ego depletion. This issue was addressed in the current study. In Experiment 1, after all participants completed a handgrip task, one group's participants completed a visual attention regulation task and the other group's participants completed an auditory attention regulation task, and then all participants again completed a handgrip task. The ego depletion phenomenon was observed in both the visual and the auditory attention regulation task. Moreover, participants who completed the visual task performed worse on the handgrip task than participants who completed the auditory task, which indicated that there was high ego depletion in the visual task condition. In Experiment 2, participants completed an initial task that either did or did not deplete self‐control resources, and then they completed a second visual or auditory attention control task. The results indicated that depleted participants performed better on the auditory attention control task than the visual attention control task. These findings suggest that altering task modality may reduce ego depletion.     

Individual differences in the ability to focus and divide attention

This research deals with individual differences in the ability to focus and divide attention. Eighty-five subjects performed visual search and auditory detection tasks in three conditions: single channel, focused attention, and divided attention. Reaction time (RT) was fastest in the single channel condition, intermediate in the focused attention condition, and longest in the divided attention condition, and these effects were much stronger in the auditory than the visual task. Correlations among RTs in the three conditions were very high within modality (>.88), and lower between modalities (.5 to .6). The correlational data was well fit by a model that included separate factors for the visual and auditory tasks. Measures from the three attentional conditions within each modality loaded equally on these factors. The data provided no evidence for distinct abilities to divide or focus attention.     

媒体多任务的效用：听觉信息干扰和视听信息整合的实验证据

采用心理旋转范式和词汇判断范式,探讨媒体多任务经验不同者在听觉信息干扰和视听信息整合情境下对图形一致性和真假词的判断表现。结果发现：（1）以判断图形一致性为实验任务,在无声和低音干扰条件下,低经验组的正确率均显著高于高经验组,两组的反应时差异均不显著;在高音干扰条件下,高经验组的反应时显著短于低经验组,正确率则没有显著差异。（2）以真假词判断为实验任务,对真词进行判断,在三种听觉条件下,高经验组在语音匹配条件下的反应时最短,与低经验组无显著差异,但正确率显著高于低经验组,与另两种听觉条件没有显著差异;低经验组在语音匹配条件下的反应时显著长于另两种听觉条件,正确率则显著高于无声条件,与不匹配条件差异不显著。对假词的判断,低经验组在三种听觉条件下的反应时均显著短于高经验组,正确率与高经验组均无显著差异。研究表明,媒体多任务经验丰富者相比经验缺乏者受到任务无关的纯短高音干扰的影响要小,在需要视听通道语义整合的加工中具有一定的优势。     

Selective impairment of auditory selective attention under concurrent cognitive load

Load theory predicts that concurrent cognitive load impairs selective attention. For visual stimuli, it has been shown that this impairment can be selective: Distraction was specifically increased when the stimulus material used in the cognitive load task matches that of the selective attention task. Here, we report four experiments that demonstrate such selective load effects for auditory selective attention. The effect of two different cognitive load tasks on two different auditory Stroop tasks was examined, and selective load effects were observed: Interference in a nonverbal-auditory Stroop task was increased under concurrent nonverbal-auditory cognitive load (compared with a no-load condition), but not under concurrent verbal-auditory cognitive load. By contrast, interference in a verbal-auditory Stroop task was increased under concurrent verbal-auditory cognitive load but not under nonverbal-auditory cognitive load. This double-dissociation pattern suggests the existence of different and separable verbal and nonverbal processing resources in the auditory domain.     

Resources required for processing ambiguous complex features in vision and audition are modality specific

Processing multiple complex features to create cohesive representations of objects is an essential aspect of both the visual and auditory systems. It is currently unclear whether these processes are entirely modality specific or whether there are amodal processes that contribute to complex object processing in both vision and audition. We investigated this using a dual-stream target detection task in which two concurrent streams of novel visual or auditory stimuli were presented. We manipulated the degree to which each stream taxed processing conjunctions of complex features. In two experiments, we found that concurrent visual tasks that both taxed conjunctive processing strongly interfered with each other but that concurrent auditory and visual tasks that both taxed conjunctive processing did not. These results suggest that resources for processing conjunctions of complex features within vision and audition are modality specific.     

Does working memory capacity predict cross-modally induced failures of awareness?

People often fail to notice unexpected stimuli when they are focusing attention on another task. Most studies of this phenomenon address visual failures induced by visual attention tasks (inattentional blindness). Yet, such failures also occur within audition (inattentional deafness), and people can even miss unexpected events in one sensory modality when focusing attention on tasks in another modality. Such cross-modal failures are revealing because they suggest the existence of a common, central resource limitation. And, such central limits might be predicted from individual differences in cognitive capacity. We replicated earlier evidence, establishing substantial rates of inattentional deafness during a visual task and inattentional blindness during an auditory task. However, neither individual working memory capacity nor the ability to perform the primary task predicted noticing in either modality. Thus, individual differences in cognitive capacity did not predict failures of awareness even though the failures presumably resulted from central resource limitations.     

Effects of alcohol and extended practice on divided-attention performance

The effects of alcohol and extended practice on divided attention were investigated using a visual tracking task and an auditory detection task. Subjects performed the tasks with and without alcohol, under single-task (S) and dual-task (D) conditions, both before and after they had received extended practice under single-task conditions without alcohol. Tracking accuracy improved with practice and was impaired under divided-attention conditions but was not affected by alcohol. Speed of detection was impaired by alcohol, improved by practice, and impaired by divided attention. Extended practice did not reduce the influence of alcohol. The effects of both alcohol and practice on speed of detection were significantly greater under dual-task conditions than under single-task conditions. Analysis of detection-task reaction times in terms of relative divided-attention costs, (D-S)/S, showed no effect of alcohol, but a highly significant reduction in costs with extended practice. It is concluded that (1) alcohol and practice can have quantitatively, but not qualitatively, similar effects on speeded performance, and (2) the effect of alcohol is not influenced by the attentional requirements of the task.     

Interactions Between Exogenous Auditory and Visual Spatial Attention

Six experiments were carried out to investigate the issue of cross-modality between exogenous auditory and visual spatial attention employing Posner's cueing paradigm in detection, localization, and discrimination tasks. Results indicated cueing in detection tasks with visual or auditory cues and visual targets but not with auditory targets (Experiment 1). In the localization tasks, cueing was found with both visual and auditory targets. Inhibition of return was apparent only in the within-modality conditions (Experiment 2). This suggests that it is important whether the attention system is activated directly (within a modality) or indirectly (between modalities). Increasing the cue validity from 50% to 80% influenced performance only in the localization task (Experiment 4). These findings are interpreted as being indicative for modality-specific but interacting attention mechanisms. The results of Experiments 5 and 6 (up/down discrimination tasks) also show cross-modal cueing but not with visual cues and auditory targets. Furthermore, there was no inhibition of return in any condition. This suggests that some cueing effects might be task dependent.     

Attentional resource demands of visual word recognition in naming and lexical decisions.

Attentional demands of lexical access were assessed with dual-task methodology. Subjects performed an auditory probe task alone (single-task) or combined (dual-task) with either a lexical decision or a naming task. In Experiment 1, probe performance showed a decrement from single- to dual-task conditions during recognition of words in both lexical decision and naming tasks. In addition, decrements in probe performance were larger during processing of low-frequency compared with high-frequency words in both of the word recognition tasks. Experiment 2 showed that the time course of frequency-sensitive demands was similar across lexical decision and naming tasks and that attention is required early in the word recognition sequence. The results support the assumption that lexical access is both frequency sensitive and attention demanding.     

Attention is required for maintenance of feature binding in visual working memory

Working memory and attention are intimately connected. However, understanding the relationship between the two is challenging. Currently, there is an important controversy about whether objects in working memory are maintained automatically or require resources that are also deployed for visual or auditory attention. Here we investigated the effects of loading attention resources on precision of visual working memory, specifically on correct maintenance of feature-bound objects, using a dual-task paradigm. Participants were presented with a memory array and were asked to remember either direction of motion of random dot kinematograms of different colour, or orientation of coloured bars. During the maintenance period, they performed a secondary visual or auditory task, with varying levels of load. Following a retention period, they adjusted a coloured probe to match either the motion direction or orientation of stimuli with the same colour in the memory array. This allowed us to examine the effects of an attention-demanding task performed during maintenance on precision of recall on the concurrent working memory task. Systematic increase in attention load during maintenance resulted in a significant decrease in overall working memory performance. Changes in overall performance were specifically accompanied by an increase in feature misbinding errors: erroneous reporting of nontarget motion or orientation. Thus in trials where attention resources were taxed, participants were more likely to respond with nontarget values rather than simply making random responses. Our findings suggest that resources used during attention-demanding visual or auditory tasks also contribute to maintaining feature-bound representations in visual working memory—but not necessarily other aspects of working memory.     

Divided attention and memory: evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding

In 5 divided attention (DA) experiments, students (24 in each experiment) performed visual distracting tasks (e.g., recognition of words, word and digit monitoring) while either simultaneously encoding an auditory word list or engaging in oral free recall of the target word list. DA during retrieval, using either of the word-based distracting tasks, produced relatively larger interference effects than the digit-monitoring task. DA during encoding produced uniformly large interference effects, regardless of the type of distracting task. Results suggest that when attention is divided at retrieval, interference is created only when the memory and concurrent task compete for access to word-specific representational systems; no such specificity is necessary to create interference at encoding. During encoding, memory and concurrent tasks compete primarily for general resources, whereas during retrieval, they compete primarily for representational systems.     

Effects of visual attentional load on low-level auditory scene analysis

The sharing of processing resources between the senses was investigated by examining the effects of visual task load on auditory event-related brain potentials (ERPs). In Experiment 1, participants completed both a zero-back and a one-back visual task while a tone pattern or a harmonic series was presented. N1 and P2 waves were modulated by visual task difficulty, but neither mismatch negativity (MMN) elicited by deviant stimuli from the tone pattern nor object-related negativity (ORN) elicited by mistuning from the harmonic series was affected. In Experiment 2, participants responded to identity (what) or location (where) in vision, while ignoring sounds alternating in either pitch (what) or location (where). Auditory ERP modulations were consistent with task difficulty, rather than with task specificity. In Experiment 3, we investigated auditory ERP generation under conditions of no visual task. The results are discussed with respect to a distinction between process-general (N1 and P2) and processspecific (MMN and ORN) auditory ERPs.     

Biases of spatial attention in vision and audition

Neurologically normal observers misperceive the midpoint of horizontal lines as systematically leftward of veridical center, a phenomenon known as pseudoneglect. Pseudoneglect is attributed to a tonic asymmetry of visuospatial attention favoring left hemispace. Whereas visuospatial attention is biased toward left hemispace, some evidence suggests that audiospatial attention may possess a right hemispatial bias. If spatial attention is supramodal, then the leftward bias observed in visual line bisection should also be expressed in auditory bisection tasks. If spatial attention is modality specific then bisection errors in visual and auditory spatial judgments are potentially dissociable. Subjects performed a bisection task for spatial intervals defined by auditory stimuli, as well as a tachistoscopic visual line bisection task. Subjects showed a significant leftward bias in the visual line bisection task and a significant rightward bias in the auditory interval bisection task. Performance across both tasks was, however, significantly positively correlated. These results imply the existence of both modality specific and supramodal attentional mechanisms where visuospatial attention has a prepotent leftward vector and audiospatial attention has a prepotent rightward vector of attention. In addition, the biases of both visuospatial and audiospatial attention are correlated.     

The effects of divided attention on auditory priming

Traditional theorizing stresses the importance of attentional state during encoding for later memory, based primarily on research with explicit memory. Recent research has begun to investigate the role of attention in implicit memory but has focused almost exclusively on priming in the visual modality. The present experiments examined the effect of divided attention on auditory implicit memory, using auditory perceptual identification, word-stem completion and word-fragment completion. Participants heard study words under full attention conditions or while simultaneously carrying out a distractor task (the divided attention condition). In Experiment 1, a distractor task with low response frequency failed to disrupt later auditory priming (but diminished explicit memory as assessed with auditory recognition). In Experiment 2, a distractor task with greater response frequency disrupted priming on all three of the auditory priming tasks as well as the explicit test. These results imply that although auditory priming is less reliant on attention than explicit memory, it is still greatly affected by at least some divided-attention manipulations. These results are consistent with research using visual priming tasks and have relevance for hypotheses regarding attention and auditory priming.     

Visual scanning with or without spatial uncertainty and divided and selective attention.

An experiment was conducted to address the relation between theories of selective attention and theories of divided attention by examining the pattern of task interference between visual scanning as a sequential and selective attention process and other concurrent spatial or verbal processing tasks. A distinction is proposed between visual scanning with or without spatial uncertainty regarding their possible differential effects on interference with other concurrent processes. The experiment required the subjects to perform a primary tracking task, which was concurrently performed with a secondary spatial or verbal decision task. The relevant information that was needed to perform the decision tasks was displayed with or without spatial uncertainty. The results provide evidence that visual scanning as a spatial exploratory activity produces greater task interference with concurrent spatial tasks than with verbal tasks. Furthermore, spatial uncertainty in scanning is identified to be the crucial factor in producing this differential effect.     

It's about time: revisiting temporal processing deficits in dyslexia

Temporal processing in French children with dyslexia was evaluated in three tasks: a word identification task requiring implicit temporal processing, and two explicit temporal bisection tasks, one in the auditory and one in the visual modality. Normally developing children matched on chronological age and reading level served as a control group. Children with dyslexia exhibited robust deficits in temporal tasks whether they were explicit or implicit and whether they involved the auditory or the visual modality. First, they presented larger perceptual variability when performing temporal tasks, whereas they showed no such difficulties when performing the same task on a non‐temporal dimension (intensity). This dissociation suggests that their difficulties were specific to temporal processing and could not be attributed to lapses of attention, reduced alertness, faulty anchoring, or overall noisy processing. In the framework of cognitive models of time perception, these data point to a dysfunction of the ‘internal clock’ of dyslexic children. These results are broadly compatible with the recent temporal sampling theory of dyslexia.     

自我损耗的视听通道效应

采用双任务实验范式,通过两个实验探讨了自我损耗的通道效应。实验1考察了完成视听工作记忆任务对执行手柄任务（非视听任务）的影响,结果发现,完成视觉损耗任务导致手柄任务的成绩显著地变差,完成听觉损耗任务、视听非损耗任务均对手柄任务的成绩没有影响。实验2考察了完成视听工作记忆任务对执行Stroop任务（视觉任务）的影响,结果发现,完成视觉损耗任务导致Stroop任务的成绩显著地变差,完成听觉损耗任务、视听非损耗任务对Stroop任务的成绩没有影响。研究结果表明同一自我控制任务通过视听通道完成对随后另一自我控制任务的影响不同,证实了自我损耗的视听通道效应。     

Effects of mood states and anxiety as induced by the video-recorded stroop color-word interference test in simple response time tasks on reaction time and movement time

Mood states and anxiety might alter performance in complex tasks whereas in more simple tasks such as stimulus-response, high anxiety could provoke bias in mechanisms of attention leading to better performances. We investigated the effects of anxiety, tension, and fatigue induced by the video-recorded Stroop Color-Word Interference Test on either reaction or movement time. 61 subjects performed a visual and an auditory response-time test in Control and Anxiogenic conditions during which heart rate was measured. Tension and anxiety states were assessed using self-evaluation. Analysis showed auditory response time was improved for both reaction and movement times in the Anxiogenic condition. These data suggest that the increased attention underlying anxiety and mood responses could have favored auditory response time by leading subjects to process stimuli more actively. In addition, state-anxiety and tension could have influenced muscular tension, enhancing the movement time in the auditory task.     

提取干扰对不同类型内隐记忆的影响

以往研究关于提取阶段的干扰是否会影响内隐记忆存在着异义, 其中一个重要因素可能源于所采用的内隐记忆测验类型的差异。本研究采用学习-测验范式, 通过4个实验, 分别考察了提取干扰对识别式知觉内隐测验、识别式概念内隐测验、产生式知觉内隐测验和产生式概念内隐测验的影响, 以期对提取干扰和内隐记忆之间的关系有着更全面的了解。结果表明: (1)词汇判断任务(识别式知觉)和语义分类任务(识别式概念)的启动效应在提取干扰下消失了, (2)而产生式词汇判断任务(产生式知觉)和产生式语义分类任务(产生式概念)在提取干扰下仍发现了明显的启动效应, 但与无干扰条件相比, 启动效应量也有着明显的减少。由此可见, 不同类型的内隐记忆都会受到提取干扰的影响, 相比于产生式启动, 识别式启动更容易受到提取干扰的破坏。