Behavioral distraction by auditory novelty is not only about novelty: The role of the distracter’s informational value

Unexpected events often distract us. In the laboratory, novel auditory stimuli have been shown to capture attention away from a focal visual task and yield specific electrophysiological responses as well as a behavioral cost to performance. Distraction is thought to follow ineluctably from the sound’s low probability of occurrence or, put more simply, its unexpected occurrence. Our study challenges this view with respect to behavioral distraction and argues that past research failed to identify the informational value of sound as a mediator of novelty distraction. We report an experiment showing that (1) behavioral novelty distraction is only observed when the sound announces the occurrence and timing of an upcoming visual target (as is the case in all past research); (2) that no such distraction is observed for deviant sounds conveying no such information; and that (3) deviant sounds can actually facilitate performance when these, but not the standards, convey information. We conclude that behavioral novelty distraction, as observed in oddball tasks, is observed in the presence of novel sounds but only when the cognitive system can take advantage of the auditory distracters to optimize performance.     

Why are auditory novels distracting? Contrasting the roles of novelty, violation of expectation and stimulus change

Past studies show that novel auditory stimuli, presented in the context of an otherwise repeated sound, capture participants’ attention away from a focal task, resulting in measurable behavioral distraction. Novel sounds are traditionally defined as rare and unexpected but past studies have not sought to disentangle these concepts directly. Using a cross-modal oddball task, we contrasted these aspects orthogonally by manipulating the base rate and conditional probabilities of sound events. We report for the first time that behavioral distraction does not result from a sound’s novelty per se but from the violation of the cognitive system’s expectation based on the learning of conditional probabilities and, to some extent, the occurrence of a perceptual change from one sound to another.     

Now you see it, now you don't: evidence for age-dependent and age-independent cross-modal distraction

Age-related deficits in selective attention have often been demonstrated in the visual modality and, to a lesser extent, in the auditory modality. In contrast, a mounting body of evidence has suggested that cross-modal selective attention is intact in aging, especially in visual tasks that require ignoring the auditory modality. Our goal in this study was to investigate age-related differences in the ability to ignore cross-modal auditory and visual distraction and to assess the role of cognitive control demands thereby. In a set of two experiments, 30 young (mean age = 23.3 years) and 30 older adults (mean age = 67.7 years) performed a visual and an auditory n-back task (0 ≤ n ≤ 2), with and without cross-modal distraction. The results show an asymmetry in cross-modal distraction as a function of sensory modality and age: Whereas auditory distraction did not disrupt performance on the visual task in either age group, visual distraction disrupted performance on the auditory task in both age groups. Most important, however, visual distraction was disproportionately larger in older adults. These results suggest that age-related distraction is modality dependent, such that suppression of cross-modal auditory distraction is preserved and suppression of cross-modal visual distraction is impaired in aging.     

The cognitive locus of distraction by acoustic novelty in the cross-modal oddball task

Unexpected stimuli are often able to distract us away from a task at hand. The present study seeks to explore some of the mechanisms underpinning this phenomenon. Studies of involuntary attention capture using the oddball task have repeatedly shown that infrequent auditory changes in a series of otherwise repeating sounds trigger an automatic response to the novel or deviant stimulus. This attention capture has been shown to disrupt participants' behavioral performance in a primary task, even when distractors and targets are asynchronous and presented in distinct sensory modalities. This distraction effect is generally considered as a by-product of the capture of attention by the novel or deviant stimulus, but the exact cognitive locus of this effect and the interplay between attention capture and target processing has remained relatively ignored. The present study reports three behavioral experiments using a cross-modal oddball task to examine whether the distraction triggered by auditory novelty affects the processing of the target stimuli. Our results showed that variations in the demands placed on the visual analysis (Experiment 1) or categorical processing of the target (Experiment 2) did not impact on distraction. Instead, the cancellation of distraction by the presentation of an irrelevant visual stimulus presented immediately before the visual target (Experiment 3) suggested that distraction originated in the shifts of attention occurring between attention capture and the onset of the target processing. Possible accounts of these shifts are discussed.     

偏差声音干扰刺激对视觉注意网络系统的影响

结合注意网络测量工具和听视ODDBALL干扰范式,考察偏差声音干扰刺激的出现对注意网络系统不同功能的影响。结果发现,声音刺激序列下,视觉线索唤醒效应均消失; 标准声音刺激下,不存在线索的脱离和转移效应; 偏差声音刺激下,出现线索脱离和转移效应。研究表明,注意网络中的警觉功能具有超通道加工机制,偏差刺激下视觉注意系统中注意定向和线索转移效应的出现表明偏差干扰效应主要由偏差刺激引起的注意脱离和注意转移损耗部分引起。     

The informational constraints of behavioral distraction by unexpected sounds: The role of event information

Sounds deviating from an otherwise repeated stream of task-irrelevant auditory stimuli (deviant sounds among standard sounds) are known to capture attention and impact negatively on ongoing behavioral performance (behavioral oddball distraction). Traditional views consider such distraction as the ineluctable consequence of the deviant sounds' low probability of occurrence relative to that of the standard. Contrary to this contention, recent evidence demonstrates that distraction by deviant sounds is not obligatory and occurs only when sounds (standards and deviants), though to be ignored, act as useful warning cues by providing information as to whether and when a target stimulus is to be presented (Parmentier, Elsley, & Ljungberg, 2010). The present study aimed to extend this finding by disentangling the roles of event information (target's probability of occurrence) and temporal information (target's time of occurrence). Comparing performance in a cross-modal oddball task where standard and deviant sounds provided temporal information, event information, both, or none, we found that distraction by deviant sounds emerged when sounds conveyed event information. These results suggest that unexpected changes in a stream of sounds yield behavioral distraction to the extent that standards and deviants carry relevant goal-directed information, specifically, the likelihood of occurrence of an upcoming target. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

The role of sensory modality in age-related distraction: a critical review and a renewed view

Selective attention requires the ability to focus on relevant information and to ignore irrelevant information. The ability to inhibit irrelevant information has been proposed to be the main source of age-related cognitive change (e.g., Hasher & Zacks, 1988). Although age-related distraction by irrelevant information has been extensively demonstrated in the visual modality, studies involving auditory and cross-modal paradigms have revealed a mixed pattern of results. A comparative evaluation of these paradigms according to sensory modality suggests a twofold trend: Age-related distraction is more likely (a) in unimodal than in cross-modal paradigms and (b) when irrelevant information is presented in the visual modality, rather than in the auditory modality. This distinct pattern of age-related changes in selective attention may be linked to the reliance of the visual and auditory modalities on different filtering mechanisms. Distractors presented through the auditory modality can be filtered at both central and peripheral neurocognitive levels. In contrast, distractors presented through the visual modality are primarily suppressed at more central levels of processing, which may be more vulnerable to aging. We propose the hypothesis that age-related distractibility is modality dependent, a notion that might need to be incorporated in current theories of cognitive aging. Ultimately, this might lead to a more accurate account for the mixed pattern of impaired and preserved selective attention found in advancing age.     

Making sense of age-related distractibility: The critical role of sensory modality

Older adults are known to have reduced inhibitory control and therefore to be more distractible than young adults. Recently, we have proposed that sensory modality plays a crucial role in age-related distractibility. In this study, we examined age differences in vulnerability to unimodal and cross-modal visual and auditory distraction. A group of 24 younger (mean age = 21.7 years) and 22 older adults (mean age = 65.4 years) performed visual and auditory n-back tasks while ignoring visual and auditory distraction. Whereas reaction time data indicated that both young and older adults are particularly affected by unimodal distraction, accuracy data revealed that older adults, but not younger adults, are vulnerable to cross-modal visual distraction. These results support the notion that age-related distractibility is modality dependent.     

事件提示和时间提示对新异干扰的影响—— 来自听视跨通道和听通道的证据

采用Oddball范式考察听视跨感觉通道和听感觉通道中“无关刺激”或“无关属性”的信号提示对新异干扰的影响。实验1和实验2分别比较了听视跨通道和听通道中时间事件提示、时间提示和事件提示三种条件。结果表明：(1)时间提示条件下新异干扰效应消失, 而事件提示条件下新异干扰效应仍存在。无关刺激意外变化引起的靶任务行为受损, 不仅与偏差刺激的小概率和新颖性有关, 而且与干扰刺激与靶子间提示信号关联有关, 这种提示关联中事件发生的提示功能比时间间隔的提示功能更为重要。(2)听通道下新异干扰与视听跨通道结果一致, 无关属性也会起到提示信号作用, 同样事件提示功能比时间提示功能更重要。     

Is approximate numerical judgment truly modality-independent? Visual, auditory, and cross-modal comparisons

The numerosity of any set of discrete elements can be depicted by a genuinely abstract number representation, irrespective of whether they are presented in the visual or auditory modality. The accumulator model predicts that no cost should apply for comparing numerosities within and across modalities. However, in behavioral studies, some inconsistencies have been apparent in the performance of number comparisons among different modalities. In this study, we tested whether and how numerical comparisons of visual, auditory, and cross-modal presentations would differ under adequate control of stimulus presentation. We measured the Weber fractions and points of subjective equality of numerical discrimination in visual, auditory, and cross-modal conditions. The results demonstrated differences between the performances in visual and auditory conditions, such that numerical discrimination of an auditory sequence was more precise than that of a visual sequence. The performance of cross-modal trials lay between performance levels in the visual and auditory conditions. Moreover, the number of visual stimuli was overestimated as compared to that of auditory stimuli. Our findings imply that the process of approximate numerical representation is complex and involves multiple stages, including accumulation and decision processes.     

Cross-modal correlation of auditory and visual language laterality tasks: a serendipitous finding

Two experiments were conducted to investigate whether auditory and visual language laterality tasks test the same brain processes for verbal functions. In the first experiment, 48 undergraduate students (24 males, 24 females) completed both an auditory monitoring task and a visual monitoring task, with the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire administered between the two tasks. The visual task was an analogue of the dichotic listening task used. It was hypothesized that a significant cross-modal correlation would be found, indicating that the dichotic listening task and the visual analogue task do, in fact, test the same brain processes for verbal functions. Results revealed a right ear advantage in the auditory task, a left visual field advantage (LVFA) in the visual task, and a cross-modal correlation of asymmetries of -.09. The LVFA observed in the visual task was replicated in Experiment 2, thus establishing its legitimacy. Results are discussed in relation with the type of processing that might produce such an unexpected finding on the visual task.     

‘What’s in a name?’ ‘No more than when it's mine own’. Evidence from auditory oddball distraction

Research of the distractor value of hearing the own name has shown that this self-referring stimulus captures attention in an involuntary fashion and create distraction. The behavioral studies are few and the outcomes are not always clear cut. In this study the distraction by own name compared to a control name was investigated by using a cross-modal oddball task in two experiments. In the first experiment, thirty-nine participants were conducting a computerized categorization task while exposed to, to-be ignored own and matched control names (controlling for familiarity, gender and number of syllables) as unexpected auditory deviant stimulus (12.5% trials for each name category) and a sine wave tone as a standard stimulus (75% of the trials). In the second experiment, another group of thirty-nine participants completed the same task but with the additional deviant stimulus of an irrelevant word added (10% trials for each deviant type and 70% trials with the standard stimulus). Results showed deviant distraction by exposure to both the irrelevant word, own and the control name compared to the standard tone but no differences were found showing that the own name captured attention and distracted the participants more than an irrelevant word or a control name. The results elucidate the role of the own name as a potent auditory distractor and possible limitations with its theoretical significance for general theories of attention are discussed.     

The cognitive determinants of behavioral distraction by deviant auditory stimuli: a review

Numerous studies have demonstrated that rare and unexpected changes in an otherwise repetitive or structured sound sequence ineluctably break through selective attention and impact negatively on performance in an unrelated task. While the electrophysiological responses to unexpected sounds have been extensively studied, behavioral distraction has received relatively less attention until recently. In this paper, I review work examining the cognitive underpinnings of behavioral distraction by deviant sounds and highlight some of its key determinants. Evidence indicates that deviance distraction (1) derives from the time penalty associated with the involuntary orientation of attention to and away from the deviant sound and from resulting effects such as the reactivation of the relevant task set upon the presentation of the target stimulus; and (2) is mediated by a number of factors (some increasing distraction, such as aging or induced emotions; some decreasing it, such as a memory load or cognitive control). Contrary to the received view that deviants ineluctably elicit distraction, recent work demonstrates that it is contingent upon auditory distractors acting as unspecific warning signals in the service of goal-oriented behavior, and that deviants do not elicit distraction because they are rare but because they violate the cognitive system’s predictions (which can be manipulated through implicit rule learning or explicit cueing). Evidence is also presented indicating that the capture of attention by spoken deviant sounds is followed by an involuntary evaluation of their semantic properties, the outcome of which can be robust enough to linger in working memory and interfere with subsequent behavior. Finally, I review studies suggesting that behavioral deviance distraction is not the mere byproduct of the mismatch negativity, P3a and re-orientation negativity electrophysiological responses and highlight a number of outstanding questions for future research.     

Visual determinants of a cross-modal illusion

Contrary to the predictions of established theory, Schutz and Lipscomb (2007) have shown that visual information can influence the perceived duration of concurrent sounds. In the present study, we deconstruct the visual component of their illusion, showing that (1) cross-modal influence depends on visible cues signaling an impact event (namely, a sudden change of direction concurrent with tone onset) and (2) the illusion is controlled primarily by the duration of post-impact motion. Other aspects of the post-impact motion—distance traveled, velocity, acceleration, and the rate of its change (i.e., its derivative, jerk)—play a minor role, if any. Together, these results demonstrate that visual event duration can influence the perception of auditory event duration, but only when stimulus cues are sufficient to give rise to the perception of a causal cross-modal relationship. This refined understanding of the illusion’s visual aspects is helpful in comprehending why it contrasts so markedly with previous research on cross-modal integration, demonstrating that vision does not appreciably influence auditory judgments of event duration (Walker & Scott, 1981).     

Facilitation of responses by task-irrelevant complex deviant stimuli

Novel stimuli reliably attract attention, suggesting that novelty may disrupt performance when it is task-irrelevant. However, under certain circumstances novel stimuli can also elicit a general alerting response having beneficial effects on performance. In a series of experiments we investigated whether different aspects of novelty – stimulus novelty, contextual novelty, surprise, deviance, and relative complexity – lead to distraction or facilitation. We used a version of the visual oddball paradigm in which participants responded to an occasional auditory target. Participants responded faster to this auditory target when it occurred during the presentation of novel visual stimuli than of standard stimuli, especially at SOAs of 0 and 200 ms (Experiment 1). Facilitation was absent for both infrequent simple deviants and frequent complex images (Experiment 2). However, repeated complex deviant images did facilitate responses to the auditory target at the 200 ms SOA (Experiment 3). These findings suggest that task-irrelevant deviant visual stimuli can facilitate responses to an unrelated auditory target in a short 0–200 millisecond time-window after presentation. This only occurs when the deviant stimuli are complex relative to standard stimuli. We link our findings to the novelty P3, which is generated under the same circumstances, and to the adaptive gain theory of the locus coeruleus–norepinephrine system (Aston-Jones and Cohen, 2005), which may explain the timing of the effects.     

Happiness increases distraction by auditory deviant stimuli

Rare and unexpected changes (deviants) in an otherwise repeated stream of task‐irrelevant auditory distractors (standards) capture attention and impair behavioural performance in an ongoing visual task. Recent evidence indicates that this effect is increased by sadness in a task involving neutral stimuli. We tested the hypothesis that such effect may not be limited to negative emotions but reflect a general depletion of attentional resources by examining whether a positive emotion (happiness) would increase deviance distraction too. Prior to performing an auditory‐visual oddball task, happiness or a neutral mood was induced in participants by means of the exposure to music and the recollection of an autobiographical event. Results from the oddball task showed significantly larger deviance distraction following the induction of happiness. Interestingly, the small amount of distraction typically observed on the standard trial following a deviant trial (post‐deviance distraction) was not increased by happiness. We speculate that happiness might interfere with the disengagement of attention from the deviant sound back towards the target stimulus (through the depletion of cognitive resources and/or mind wandering) but help subsequent cognitive control to recover from distraction.     

Broken expectations: violation of expectancies, not novelty, captures auditory attention

The role of memory in behavioral distraction by auditory attentional capture was investigated: We examined whether capture is a product of the novelty of the capturing event (i.e., the absence of a recent memory for the event) or its violation of learned expectancies on the basis of a memory for an event structure. Attentional capture-indicated by disruption of a focal visually presented serial recall task-was found when the voice conveying a concurrent irrelevant auditory sequence changed every 5 recall trials (from male to female or vice versa). There was no evidence of attentional capture when the irrelevant sequence was first encountered and hence novel; capture occurred only when an expectation for a particular voice had been learned and then violated. Furthermore, with the increasing predictability of (and hence expectancy for) the voice changes across the experimental session, the capture response diminished only to be reinstated when that session-wide expectation was itself violated by a break in the change-every-5-trials pattern. The results highlight the critical role of learned expectations, as opposed to novelty detection, in behavioral auditory attentional capture.     

Cross-modal training induces changes in spatial representations early in the auditory processing pathway

In the ventriloquism aftereffect, brief exposure to a consistent spatial disparity between auditory and visual stimuli leads to a subsequent shift in subjective sound localization toward the positions of the visual stimuli. Such rapid adaptive changes probably play an important role in maintaining the coherence of spatial representations across the various sensory systems. In the research reported here, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to identify the stage in the auditory processing stream that is modulated by audiovisual discrepancy training. Both before and after exposure to synchronous audiovisual stimuli that had a constant spatial disparity of 15°, participants reported the perceived location of brief auditory stimuli that were presented from central and lateral locations. In conjunction with a sound localization shift in the direction of the visual stimuli (the behavioral ventriloquism aftereffect), auditory ERPs as early as 100 ms poststimulus (N100) were systematically modulated by the disparity training. These results suggest that cross-modal learning was mediated by a relatively early stage in the auditory cortical processing stream.     

Cross-modal priming and explicit memory in patients with verbal production deficits

Implicit memory is often thought to reflect an influence of past experience on perceptual processes, yet priming effects are found when the perceptual format of stimuli changes between study and test episodes. Such cross-modal priming effects have been hypothesized to depend upon stimulus recoding processes whereby a stimulus presented in one modality is converted to other perceptual formats. The present research examined recoding accounts of cross-modal priming by testing patients with verbal production deficits that presumably impair the conversion of visual words into auditory/phonological forms. The patients showed normal priming in a visual stem completion task following visual study (Experiment 1), but showed impairments following auditory study in both implicit (Experiment 2) and explicit (Experiment 3) stem completion. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that verbal production processes contribute to the recoding of visual stimuli and support cross-modal priming. The results also indicate that shared processes contribute to both explicit memory and cross-modal implicit memory.     

Eyeclosure helps memory by reducing cognitive load and enhancing visualisation

Closing the eyes helps memory. We investigated the mechanisms underlying the eyeclosure effect by exposing 80 eyewitnesses to different types of distraction during the witness interview: blank screen (control), eyes closed, visual distraction, and auditory distraction. We examined the cognitive load hypothesis by comparing any type of distraction (visual or auditory) with minimal distraction (blank screen or eyes closed). We found recall to be significantly better when distraction was minimal, providing evidence that eyeclosure reduces cognitive load. We examined the modality-specific interference hypothesis by comparing the effects of visual and auditory distraction on recall of visual and auditory information. Visual and auditory distraction selectively impaired memory for information presented in the same modality, supporting the role of visualisation in the eyeclosure effect. Analysis of recall in terms of grain size revealed that recall of basic information about the event was robust, whereas recall of specific details was prone to both general and modality-specific disruptions.