Phase attraction in sensorimotor synchronization with auditory sequences: effects of single and periodic distractors on synchronization accuracy

Four experiments showed that both single and periodic distractor tones affected the timing of finger taps produced in synchrony with an isochronous auditory target sequence. Single distractors had only small effects, but periodic distractors occurring at various fixed or changing phase relationships exerted strong phase attraction. The attraction was asymmetric, being stronger when distractors preceded target tones than when they lagged behind. A large pitch difference between target and distractor tones (20 vs. 3 semitones) did not reduce phase attraction substantially, although in the case of continuously changing phase relationships it did prevent complete capture of the taps by the distractors. The results support the hypothesis that phase attraction is an automatic process that is sensitive primarily to event onsets.     

Does an auditory distractor sequence affect self-paced tapping?

This study investigated whether an auditory distractor (D) sequence affects the timing of self-paced finger tapping. To begin with, Experiment 1 replicated earlier findings by showing that, when taps are synchronized with an isochronous auditory target (T) sequence, an isochronous D sequence of different tempo and pitch systematically modulates the tap timing. The extent of the modulation depended on the relative intensity of the T and D tones, but not on their pitch distance. Experiment 2 then used a synchronization-continuation paradigm in which D sequences of different tempi were introduced only during continuation tapping. Although the D sequences rarely captured the taps completely, they did increase the tapping variability and deviations from the correct tempo. Furthermore, they eliminated the negative correlation between successive inter-tap intervals and led to intermittent phase locking when the tapping period was close to the period of the D sequence. These distractor effects occurred regardless of whether or not the taps generated auditory feedback tones. The distractor effects thus depend neither on the intention to synchronize with a T sequence nor on the simultaneous perception of two auditory sequences. Rather, they seem to reflect a basic attraction of rhythmic movement to auditory rhythms.     

On the nature of phase attraction in sensorimotor synchronization with interleaved auditory sequences

In a task that requires in-phase synchronization of finger taps with an isochronous sequence of target tones that is interleaved with a sequence of distractor tones at various fixed phase relationships, the taps tend to be attracted to the distractor tones, especially when the distractor tones closely precede the target tones [Repp, B. H. (2003a). Phase attraction in sensorimotor synchronization with auditory sequences: Effects of single and periodic distractors on synchronization accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 290-309]. The present research addressed two related questions about this distractor effect: (1) Is it a function of the absolute temporal separation or of the relative phase of the two stimulus sequences? (2) Is it the result of perceptual grouping (integration) of target and distractor tones or of simultaneous attraction to two independent sequences? In three experiments, distractor effects were compared across two different sequence rates. The results suggest that absolute temporal separation, not relative phase, is the critical variable. Experiment 3 also included an anti-phase tapping task that addressed the second question directly. The results suggest that the attraction of taps to distractor tones is caused mainly by temporal integration of target and distractor tones within a fixed window of 100-150 ms duration, with the earlier-occurring tone being weighted more strongly than the later-occurring one.     

Attentional control settings prevent abrupt onsets from capturing visual spatial attention

When a visual distractor appears earlier than a visual target in a target-detection task, response time is faster if the distractor appears at the same location as the target. When a visual distractor appears concurrently with a visual target in a target-detection task, response time is slowed relative to when no distractor is presented. Both effects have been taken as evidence of the capture of visual spatial attention, yet capture by early distractors is contingent on top-down attentional control settings (ACSs), and capture by concurrent distractors is not. The present study evaluated whether this incongruity is attributable to the timing of distractors (earlier than vs. concurrently with the target), or to the employed comparisons (same location/different location vs. distractor/no distractor). Using a task that presented both early and concurrent distractors, we observed that, regardless of timing, capture was contingent on ACSs when assessed by the same-location/different-location comparison. This result suggests that, although irrelevant stimuli cause nonspatial purely stimulus-driven effects, the capture of visual spatial attention is contingent on ACSs.     

The inability to ignore auditory distractors as a function of visual task perceptual load

Using a response competition paradigm, we investigated the ability to ignore target response-compatible, target response-incompatible, and neutral visual and auditory distractors presented during a visual search task. The perceptual load model of attention (e.g., Lavie & Tsal, 1994) states that task-relevant processing load determines irrelevant distractor processing in such a way that increasing processing load prevents distractor processing. In three experiments, participants searched sets of one (easy search) or six (hard search) similar items. In Experiment 1, visual distractors influenced reaction time (RT) and accuracy only for easy searches, following the perceptual load model. Surprisingly, auditory distractors yielded larger distractor compatibility effects (median RT for incompatible trials minus median RT for compatible trials) for hard searches than for easy searches. In Experiments 2 and 3, during hard searches, consistent RT benefits with response-compatible and RT costs with response-incompatible auditory distractors occurred only for hard searches. We suggest that auditory distractors are processed regardless of visual perceptual load but that the ability to inhibit cross-modal influence from auditory distractors is reduced under high visual load.     

Object file continuity and the auditory attentional blink

Three experiments were designed to investigate the causes of the auditory attentional blink (AB). Experiments 1A and 1B revealed that there was a larger auditory AB when the target and the distractors were different in two attributes than when they were different in only one attribute. Experiments 2A and 2B showed that for pure-tone distractor sequences, there were small auditory AB deficits when both the target and the probe were different from the distractors in two attributes or in one attribute; however, for pulse distractor sequences, there was a large auditory AB when both the target and the probe were different from the distractors in one attribute, but not when they were different in two attributes. Experiments 3A and 3B revealed that regardless of the relationship of the target to the subsequent distractors, a large AB was generated if it was the first sound in a sequence. Moreover, only a very small AB was apparent when the distractors following the probe were replaced by silence. These results indicated that the auditory AB is affected by both the requirement of creating and consolidating a new object file for the target and the overwriting of the probe by the distractors following it.     

Crossmodal facilitation of masked visual target identification

In the present study, participants identified the location of a visual target presented in a rapidly masked, changing sequence of visual distractors. In Experiment 1, we examined performance when a high tone, embedded in a sequence of low tones, was presented in synchrony with the visual target and observed that the high tone improved visual target identification, relative to a condition in which a low tone was synchronized with the visual target, thus replicating Vroomen and de Gelder's (2000, Experiment 1) findings. In subsequent experiments, we presented a single visual, auditory, vibrotactile, or combined audiotactile cue with the visual target and found similar improvements in participants' performance regardless of cue type. These results suggest that crossmodal perceptual organization may account for only a part of the improvement in participants' visual target identification performance reported in Vroomen and de Gelder's original study. Moreover, in contrast with many previous crossmodal cuing studies, our results also suggest that visual cues can enhance visual target identification performance. Alternative accounts for these results are discussed in terms of enhanced saliency, the presence of a temporal marker, and attentional capture by oddball stimuli as potential explanations for the observed performance benefits.     

Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production

The relationship between semantic-syntactic and phonological levels in speaking was investigated using a picture naming procedure with simultaneously presented visual or auditory distractor words. Previous results with auditory distractors have been used to support the independent stage model (e.g., H. Schriefers, A. S. Meyer, & W. J. M. Levelt, 1990), whereas results with visual distractors have been used to support an interactive view (e.g., P.A. Starreveld & W. La Heij, 1996b). Experiment 1 demonstrated that with auditory distractors, semantic effects preceded phonological effects, whereas the reverse pattern held for visual distractors. Experiment 2 indicated that the results for visual distractors followed the auditory pattern when distractor presentation time was limited. Experiment 3 demonstrated an interaction between phonological and semantic relatedness of distractors for auditory presentation, supporting an interactive account of lexical access in speaking.     

Auditory dominance in temporal processing: new evidence from synchronization with simultaneous visual and auditory sequences

Evidence that audition dominates vision in temporal processing has come from perceptual judgment tasks. This study shows that this auditory dominance extends to the largely subconscious processes involved in sensorimotor coordination. Participants tapped their finger in synchrony with auditory and visual sequences containing an event onset shift (EOS), expected to elicit an involuntary phase correction response (PCR), and also tried to detect the EOS. Sequences were presented in unimodal and bimodal conditions, including one in which auditory and visual EOSs of opposite sign coincided. Unimodal results showed greater variability of taps, smaller PCRs, and poorer EOS detection in vision than in audition. In bimodal conditions, variability of taps was similar to that for unimodal auditory sequences, and PCRs depended more on auditory than on visual information, even though attention was always focused on the visual sequences.     

Synchronization with competing visual and auditory rhythms: bouncing ball meets metronome

Synchronization of finger taps with periodically flashing visual stimuli is known to be much more variable than synchronization with an auditory metronome. When one of these rhythms is the synchronization target and the other serves as a distracter at various temporal offsets, strong auditory dominance is observed. However, it has recently been shown that visuomotor synchronization improves substantially with moving stimuli such as a continuously bouncing ball. The present study pitted a bouncing ball against an auditory metronome in a target–distracter synchronization paradigm, with the participants being auditory experts (musicians) and visual experts (video gamers and ball players). Synchronization was still less variable with auditory than with visual target stimuli in both groups. For musicians, auditory stimuli tended to be more distracting than visual stimuli, whereas the opposite was the case for the visual experts. Overall, there was no main effect of distracter modality. Thus, a distracting spatiotemporal visual rhythm can be as effective as a distracting auditory rhythm in its capacity to perturb synchronous movement, but its effectiveness also depends on modality-specific expertise.     

Rate limits in sensorimotor synchronization with auditory and visual sequences: the synchronization threshold and the benefits and costs of interval subdivision

Synchronization of finger taps with an isochronous event sequence becomes difficult when the event rate exceeds a certain limit. In Experiment 1, the synchronization threshold was reached at interonset intervals (IOIs) above 100 ms with auditory tone sequences (in a 1:4 tapping task) but at IOIs above 400 ms with visual flash sequences (1:1 tapping). Using IOIs above those limits, the author investigated in Experiment 2 the reduction in the variability of asynchronies that tends to occur when the intervals between target events are subdivided by additional identical events (1:1 vs. 1:n tapping). The subdivision benefit was found to decrease with IOI duration and to turn into a cost at IOIs of 200-250 ms in auditory sequences and at IOIs of 450-500 ms in visual sequences. The auditory results are relevant to the limits of metrical subdivision and beat rate in music. The visual results demonstrate the remarkably weak rhythmicity of (nonmoving) visual stimuli.     

A comparison of auditory and visual apparent motion presented individually and with crossmodal moving distractors

Unimodal auditory and visual apparent motion (AM) and bimodal audiovisual AM were investigated to determine the effects of crossmodal integration on motion perception and direction-of-motion discrimination in each modality. To determine the optimal stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) ranges for motion perception and direction discrimination, we initially measured unimodal visual and auditory AMs using one of four durations (50, 100, 200, or 400 ms) and ten SOAs (40-450 ms). In the bimodal conditions, auditory and visual AM were measured in the presence of temporally synchronous, spatially displaced distractors that were either congruent (moving in the same direction) or conflicting (moving in the opposite direction) with respect to target motion. Participants reported whether continuous motion was perceived and its direction. With unimodal auditory and visual AM, motion perception was affected differently by stimulus duration and SOA in the two modalities, while the opposite was observed for direction of motion. In the bimodal audiovisual AM condition, discriminating the direction of motion was affected only in the case of an auditory target. The perceived direction of auditory but not visual AM was reduced to chance levels when the crossmodal distractor direction was conflicting. Conversely, motion perception was unaffected by the distractor direction and, in some cases, the mere presence of a distractor facilitated movement perception.     

Predictability affects the perception of audiovisual synchrony in complex sequences

The ability to make accurate audiovisual synchrony judgments is affected by the "complexity" of the stimuli: We are much better at making judgments when matching single beeps or flashes as opposed to video recordings of speech or music. In the present study, we investigated whether the predictability of sequences affects whether participants report that auditory and visual sequences appear to be temporally coincident. When we reduced their ability to predict both the next pitch in the sequence and the temporal pattern, we found that participants were increasingly likely to report that the audiovisual sequences were synchronous. However, when we manipulated pitch and temporal predictability independently, the same effect did not occur. By altering the temporal density (items per second) of the sequences, we further determined that the predictability effect occurred only in temporally dense sequences: If the sequences were slow, participants' responses did not change as a function of predictability. We propose that reduced predictability affects synchrony judgments by reducing the effective pitch and temporal acuity in perception of the sequences.     

Sensorimotor synchronization with adaptively timed sequences

Most studies of human sensorimotor synchronization require participants to coordinate actions with computer-controlled event sequences that are unresponsive to their behavior. In the present research, the computer was programmed to carry out phase and/or period correction in response to asynchronies between taps and tones, and thereby to modulate adaptively the timing of the auditory sequence that human participants were synchronizing with, as a human partner might do. In five experiments the computer's error correction parameters were varied over a wide range, including "uncooperative" settings that a human synchronization partner could not (or would not normally) adopt. Musically trained participants were able to maintain synchrony in all these situations, but their behavior varied systematically as a function of the computer's parameter settings. Computer simulations were conducted to infer the human participants' error correction parameters from statistical properties of their behavior (means, standard deviations, auto- and cross-correlations). The results suggest that participants maintained a fixed gain of phase correction as long as the computer was cooperative, but changed their error correction strategies adaptively when faced with an uncooperative computer.     

Effect of distractor sounds on the auditory attentional blink

Four experiments were conducted to determine whether or not the presence and placement of distractors in a rapid serial auditory stream has any influence on the emergence of the auditory attentional blink (AB). Experiment 1 revealed that the presence of distractors is necessary to produce the auditory AB. In Experiments 2 and 3, the auditory AB was reduced when the distractor immediately following the probe was replaced by silence but not when the distractor following the target was replaced by silence. Finally, in Experiment 4, only a very small auditory AB was found to remain when all distractors following the probe were replaced by silence. These results suggest that the auditory AB is affected both by the overwriting of the probe by the distractors following it and by a reduction in discriminability generated by all of the distractors presented in the sequence.     

Rate Limits in Sensorimotor Synchronization With Auditory and Visual Sequences: The Synchronization Threshold and the Benefits and Costs of Interval Subdivision

Synchronization of finger taps with an isochronous event sequence becomes difficult when the event rate exceeds a certain limit. In Experiment 1, the synchronization threshold was reached at interonset intervals (IOIs) above 100 ms with auditory tone sequences (in a 1:4 tapping task) but at IOIs above 400 ms with visual flash sequences (1:1 tapping). Using IOIs above those limits, the author investigated in Experiment 2 the reduction in the variability of asynchronies that tends to occur when the intervals between target events are subdivided by additional identical events (1:1 vs 1:n tapping). The subdivision benefit was found to decrease with IOI duration and to turn into a cost at IOIs of 200–250 ms in auditory sequences and at IOIs of 450–500 ms in visual sequences. The auditory results are relevant to the limits of metrical subdivision and beat rate in music. The visual results demonstrate the remarkably weak rhythmicity of (nonmoving) visual stimuli.     

Control of Expressive and Metronomic Timing in Pianists

In 12 tasks, each including 10 repetitions, 6 skilled pianists performed or responded to a musical excerpt. In the first 6 tasks, expressive timing was required; in the last 6 tasks, metronomic timing. The pianists first played the music on a digital piano (Tasks 1 and 7), then played it without auditory feedback (Tasks 2 and 8), then tapped on a response key in synchrony with one of their own performances (Tasks 3 and 9), with an imagined performance (Tasks 4 and 10), with a computer-generated performance (Tasks 5 and 11), and with a computer-generated sequence of clicks (Tasks 6 and 12). The results demonstrated that pianists are capable of generating the expressive timing pattern of their performance in the absence of auditory and kinaesthetic (piano keyboard) feedback. They can also synchronize their finger taps quite well with expressively timed music or clicks (while imagining the music), although they tend to underestimate long interonset intervals and to compensate on the following tap. Expressive timing is thus shown to be generated from an internal representation of the music. In metronomic performance, residual expressive timing effects were evident. Those did not depend on auditory feedback, but they were much reduced or absent when kinaesthetic feedback from the piano keyboard was eliminated. Thus, they seemed to arise from the pianist's physical interaction with the instrument. Systematic timing patterns related to expressive timing were also observed in synchronization with a metronomic computer performance and even in synchronization with metronomic clicks. These results shed light on intentional and unintentional, structurally governed processes of timing control in music performance.     

Blinded by emotion: target misses follow attention capture by arousing distractors in RSVP

Participants are usually able to search rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) streams and report a single target, given that RSVP distractors do not typically deplete attention required for target identification. Here, participants performed single target search, but the target was preceded by a to-be-ignored distractor varying in valence and arousal. When the critical distractor was a sexual word, lower target accuracy was observed, particularly at short distractor-target stimulus onset asynchronies, even when participants were shown the critical distractors beforehand and told to ignore them. No reduction in target accuracy was evidenced when the critical distractor was negative, positive, threatening, or emotionally neutral. Target accuracy was predicted by participants' arousal ratings to the critical distractor words and by their memory for them, but not by their valence ratings. Memory for critical distractors mediated the relationship between arousal and target accuracy. The results provide evidence that arousing sexual words involuntarily capture attention and enter awareness at the expense of goal-driven targets, at least in the context of laboratory experiments performed by young university participants for whom sexual material might have high impact and relevance.     

视-听跨通道汉语词汇信息加工中的抑制机制

采用选择性再认的方法考察在汉语词汇加工过程中 ,视 -听跨通道信息与视觉单通道信息加工过程中的抑制机制。结果表明 :对于视觉词汇的总体再认“否”反应 ,单通道干扰条件下的成绩优于跨通道干扰条件下的成绩。在视觉词汇加工过程中 ,对外在干扰材料的抑制效率不受输入干扰刺激的通道的影响。抑制效率受干扰材料语义关系性的影响 ,与目标材料属于同一语义范畴的比异范畴的干扰材料更难以被抑制。     

Auditory distractor processing in sequential selection tasks

In this review, we analyze the cognitive processes contributing to selection in audition. In particular, we focus on the processing of auditory distractors in sequential selection paradigms in which target stimuli are accompanied by distractors. We review the evidence from two established tasks, namely the auditory negative priming and the auditory distractor–response binding task, and discuss the cognitive mechanisms contributing to the results typically observed in these tasks. In fact, several processes have been suggested as to explain how distractors are processed and handled in audition; that is, auditory distractors can be inhibited, encoded with a do-not-respond-tag, integrated into a stimulus–response episode containing the response to the target, or upheld in working memory and matched/mismatched with the following distractor. In addition, variables possibly modulating these cognitive processes are discussed. Finally, auditory distractor processing is compared with distractor processing in vision.