Evidence for habituation of the irrelevant-sound effect on serial recall

Working memory theories make opposing predictions as to whether the disruptive effect of task-irrelevant sound on serial recall should be attenuated after repeated exposure to the auditory distractors. Although evidence of habituation has emerged after a passive listening phase, previous attempts to observe habituation to to-be ignored distractors on a trial-by-trial basis have proven to be fruitless. With the present study, we suggest that habituation to auditory distractors occurs, but has often been overlooked because past attempts to measure habituation in the irrelevant-sound paradigm were not sensitive enough. In a series of four experiments, the disruptive effects of to-be-ignored speech and music relative to a quiet control condition were markedly reduced after eight repetitions, regardless of whether trials were presented in blocks (Exp. 1) or in a random order (Exp. 2). The auditory distractor’s playback direction (forward, backward) had no effect (Exp. 3). The same results were obtained when the auditory distractors were only presented in a retention interval after the presentation of the to-be-remembered items (Exp. 4). This pattern is only consistent with theoretical accounts that allow for attentional processes to interfere with the maintenance of information in working memory.     

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.     

在抑制分心物干扰效应上学困生和学优生的比较

采用Stroop颜色命名作业,在严格控制各种条件下探究重复分心物的促进效应是由习惯化机制还是由分心物连续抑制机制造成的问题,进而比较学困生和学优生在Stroop干扰效应、重复分心物促进效应和负启动效应上的差异,结果显示,重复分心物促进效应是由习惯化机制造成的。这种抑制机制,只有在分心物重复条件下才能发挥作用;因而其效用并不广泛;而负启动效应所指的分心物抑制机制却是一种效用广泛的抑制机制。并进而揭示,学困生和学优生都存在重复分心物促进效应,但因学困生的负启动效应比学优生小,所以学困生在Stroop色词干扰效应上大于学优生。     

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.     

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.     

A dissociation between one-trial overshadowing and the effect of a distractor on habituation

Rats drank a novel vinegar flavour and were subsequently tested either for habituation of neophobia to vinegar or for the conditioning of an aversion to vinegar when it was followed 4 hr later by an injection of lithium chloride. If they drank a sucrose distractor immediately after their first vinegar trial, habituation of neophobia was disrupted but conditioning was not. Sucrose consumed 3.5 hr after the initial vinegar trial, on the other hand, had less of an effect on habituation, but did disrupt conditioning. An incidental finding, replicated in two subsequent experiments, was that the immediate sucrose distractor had no effect on habituation when animals were tested 48 hr after their initial habituation trial. We interpret these results to suggest that distractors affect habituation by a process of generalization decrement but overshadow conditioning through a process of associative competition.     

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.     

Rhythmic movement is attracted more strongly to auditory than to visual rhythms

People often move in synchrony with auditory rhythms (e.g., music), whereas synchronization of movement with purely visual rhythms is rare. In two experiments, this apparent attraction of movement to auditory rhythms was investigated by requiring participants to tap their index finger in synchrony with an isochronous auditory (tone) or visual (flashing light) target sequence while a distractor sequence was presented in the other modality at one of various phase relationships. The obtained asynchronies and their variability showed that auditory distractors strongly attracted participants' taps, whereas visual distractors had much weaker effects, if any. This asymmetry held regardless of the spatial congruence or relative salience of the stimuli in the two modalities. When different irregular timing patterns were imposed on target and distractor sequences, participants' taps tended to track the timing pattern of auditory distractor sequences when they were approximately in phase with visual target sequences, but not the reverse. These results confirm that rhythmic movement is more strongly attracted to auditory than to visual rhythms. To the extent that this is an innate proclivity, it may have been an important factor in the evolution of music.     

Task difficulty and visual similarity increase a distractor's effects on random shapes

Recognition of random shapes followed by a visual distractor is altered by the type of distractor and whether the distractor needs to be attended. Three experiments tested which characteristics modify a visual distractor's effect on random target shapes presented for 75 to 150 msec. Exp. 1 showed that increasing the number of digits to be remembered (1, 3, or 8) increased the effectiveness of digits as distractors. Exeir effect as visual distractors for random target shapes. Random shapes were highly effective as distractors, while pictures of faces or comples colored pictures had a relatively small effect. In Exp. 3 decreasing the presentation time for novel visual distractors decreased recognition of the distractors but not of random target shapes. However, adding a three-digit distractor after the novel visual distractor did decrease recognition of target shapes. Exps. 2 and 3 showed that the order of the recognition tests of the target and distracting stimuli altered target recognition if and only if subjects did know which was to be reported first. These experiments indicate that the effect of a visual distractor depends on both the extent to which it is allotted attention and its visual similarity to the target stimulus.     

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。     

The activation of word class information during speech production

In 5 picture-word interference experiments the activation of word class information was investigated. The first experiment, in which subjects used bare nouns to describe the pictures, failed to reveal any interference effect of noun distractor words as opposed to closed-class distractor words. In the next 4 experiments the pictures were named by using a definite determiner and the noun completing a sentence fragment. The data demonstrate that noun distractors interfere more strongly with picture naming than do non-noun distractors. This held for both visual and auditory presentation of the distractor words. The interference effect showed up in a time window where semantic interference can usually be observed, supporting the assumption that at an early stage of lexical access semantic and syntactic activation processes overlap.     

Semantic priming by irrelevant speech

To-be-ignored, task-irrelevant speech disrupts serial recall performance relative to a quiet control condition. In most studies, the content of the auditory distractors had no effect on their disruptive potential, one’s own name being one of the few exceptions. There are two possible explanations of this pattern: (1) Semantic features of the irrelevant speech are usually not processed, except for highly relevant auditory distractors, or (2) semantic processing of the irrelevant speech always occurs, but usually does not affect serial recall performance. To test these explanations, we presented to-be-ignored auditory distractor words drawn from different categories while participants memorized visual targets for serial recall. Afterwards, participants were invited to what they believed to be an unrelated norming study, in which they were required to spontaneously produce words from the categories from which the auditory distractor words were drawn. Previously ignored words were produced with a higher probability than words from a parallel, nonpresented set, demonstrating that features of to-be-ignored, task-irrelevant speech that do not interfere with immediate serial recall performance are nevertheless processed semantically and may have substantial effects on subsequent behavior.     

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.     

Proactive inhibitory control of emotional distractors: Evidence for the benefit of precuing emotional distractors

The present study investigated the role of proactive inhibitory control in processing emotional distractors by examining the benefit of precuing the following emotional distractor. In Experiments 1A and 1B, an emotional flanker task was used while schematic emotional faces were presented as targets and distractors. We found the benefit of precuing the emotional distractor. In Experiment 2, the precue could not predict the following emotional distractor. The benefit of precuing the emotional distractor diminished, suggesting that the benefit was not due to reactive inhibition of the precued distractor. In Experiments 3A and 3B, an emotional Stroop task was used while schematic emotional faces were presented as distractors. The benefit of precuing the emotional distractors was observed when these distractors were emotional faces but not observed when the distractors were scrambled faces. These findings suggested that the benefit of precuing the emotional distractors operates at the emotional level.     

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.     

When more is less: a counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm

Pictures were shown with superimposed word distractors of high and low frequency. Low-frequency distractors produced greater interference on picture naming than did high-frequency distractors. This distractor frequency effect was not affected by manipulations that facilitated or hindered distractor recognition. Interference was reduced for distractors that were read aloud several times prior to being shown in the picture-naming task. Together these findings suggest that the distractor frequency effect has its locus at some stage of lexical access for production. Other findings further constrain hypotheses about which level of speech production is involved in the effect. The distractor frequency effect has implications for models of lexical processing in speaking as well as for accounts of picture-word interference and the frequency effect.     

Developmental change in the cross-modal Stroop effect

E. M. Elliott, Cowan, and Valle-Inclan (1998) reported a cross-modal Stroop-like interference effect in adults when an auditory distractor (a color or noncolor word) occurred simultaneously with a color patch to be named. Response times were slower with color as opposed to noncolor distractors. To distinguish two accounts of this phenomenon, we tested 4- to 11-year-olds and adults. The suppression hypothesis posits that the irrelevant word enters a phonological buffer and is injurious to color naming if the participant is unable to suppress its representation in time. The concurrent processing hypothesis states that interference occurs when the distractor and the color name are lexically accessed at the same time. Our finding that the cross-modal Stroop effect occurred in young children even with a distractor presented 500 msec in advance of the color patch favors the suppression account. Development in executive functioning may also contribute to the interference effect's becoming progressively weaker with age.     

Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action

In a series of three experiments requiring selection of real objects for action, we investigated whether characteristics of the planned action and/or the “affordances” of target and distractor objects affected interference caused by distractors. In all ofthe experiments, the target object was selectedon the basis of colour and was presented alone or with a distractor object. We examined the effect of type of response (button press, grasping, or pointing), object affordances (compatibility with the acting hand, affordances for grasping or pointing), and target/distractor positions (left or right) on distractor interference (reaction time differences between trials with and without distractors). Different patterns of distractor interference were associated with different motor responses. In the button-press conditions of each experiment, distractor interference was largely determined by perceptual salience (e.g., proximity to initial visual fixation). In contrast, in tasks requiring action upon the objects in the array, distractors with handles caused greater interference than those without handles, irrespective of whether the intended action was pointing or grasping. Additionally, handled distractors were relatively more salient when their affordances for grasping were strong (handle direction compatible with the acting hand) than when affordances were weak. These data suggest that attentional highlighting of specific target and distractor features is a function of intended actions.     

Self-relevance increases the irrelevant sound effect: Attentional disruption by one's own name

Memory performance is severely disrupted when task-irrelevant sound is played during item presentation or in a retention interval. Working memory models make contrasting assumptions on whether the semantic content of the auditory distractors modulates the irrelevant sound effect. In the present study, participants made more errors in serial recall when they had to ignore sentences containing their own name as opposed to that of a yoked-control partner. These results are only consistent with working memory models that allow for attentional processes to play a role in the explanation of the irrelevant sound effect. With repeated presentation the disruptive effect of one's own name decreased, whereas the disruptive effect of the auditory distractors in the control condition remained constant. The latter finding is most consistent with the duplex model of auditory attention, which assumes that the irrelevant sound effect is primarily caused by automatic interference of acoustic distractor features, but at the same time allows for a disruption of encoding due to attentional capture by unexpected deviants. However, to explain the present results, the mechanism responsible for the attentional capture has to be extended to highly (self-)relevant auditory distractors.     

A two-stage model for visual-auditory interaction in saccadic latencies

In two experiments, saccadic response time (SRT) for eye movements toward visual target stimuli at different horizontal positions was measured under simultaneous or near-simultaneous presentation of an auditory nontarget (distractor). The horizontal position of the auditory signal was varied, using a virtual auditory environment setup. Mean SRT to a visual target increased with distance to the auditory nontarget and with delay of the onset of the auditory signal relative to the onset of the visual stimulus. A stochastic model is presented that distinguishes a peripheral processing stage with separate parallel activation by visual and auditory information from a central processing stage at which intersensory integration takes place. Two model versions differing with respect to the role of the auditory distractors are tested against the SRT data.