Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-05-2014 | Original Article

Sensory ERP effects in auditory distraction: did we miss the main event?

Auteur: János Horváth

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2014

Abstract

Event-related potentials (ERPs) offer unique insights into processes related to involuntary attention changes triggered by rare, unpredictably occurring sensory events, that is, distraction. Contrasting ERPs elicited by distracters and frequent standard stimuli in oddball paradigms allowed the formulation of a three-stage model describing distraction-related processing: first, the distracting event is highlighted by a sensory filter. Second, attention is oriented towards the event, and finally, the task-optimal attention set is restored, or task priorities are changed. Although this model summarizes how distracting stimulus information is processed, not much is known about the cost of taking this exceptional route of processing. The present study demonstrates the impact of distraction on sensory processing. Participants performed a Go/NoGo tone-duration discrimination task, with infrequent pitch distracters. In the two parts of the experiment the duration-response mapping was reversed. Contrasts of distracter and standard ERPs revealed higher P3a- and reorienting negativity amplitudes for short than for long tones, independently from response type. To understand the cause of these asymmetries, short vs. long ERP contrasts were calculated. The ERP pattern showed that short standards elicited an attention-dependent offset response, which was abolished for short distracters. That is, the apparent P3a- and RON enhancements were caused by the removal of a task-related attentional sensory enhancement. This shows that the disruption of task-optimal attention set precedes the elicitation of the P3a, which suggests that P3a does not reflect a process driving the initial distraction-related attention change.

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

volgende artikel Bottom-up influences of voice continuity in focusing selective auditory attention

Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384. doi:10.3758/BF03192707.PubMedCrossRef

Barcelo, F., Escera, C., Corral, M. J., & Periáñez, J. A. (2006). Task switching and novelty processing activate a common neural network for cognitive control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(10), 1734–1748.PubMedCrossRef

Berti, S., & Schröger, E. (2001). A comparison of auditory and visual distraction effects: behavioral and event-related indices. Cognitive Brain Research, 10(3), 265–273.PubMedCrossRef

Dien, J., Spencer, K. M., & Donchin, E. (2004). Parsing the late positive complex: mental chronometry and the ERP components that inhabit the neighborhood of the P300. Psychophysiology, 41(5), 665–678. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00193.x.PubMedCrossRef

Escera, C., Alho, K., Schröger, E., & Winkler, I. (2000). Involuntary attention and distractibility as evaluated with event-related brain potentials. Audiology and Neurotology, 5(3–4), 151–166.PubMedCrossRef

Escera, C., & Corral, M.-J. (2003). The distraction potential (DP), an electrophysiological tracer of involuntary attention control and its dysfunction. In Reinvang, I., Greenlee, M. W., & Herrmann, M. (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of individual differences (pp. 63–76). Bibliotheksund Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg, Oldenberg, Germany.

Escera, C., Yago, E., & Alho, K. (2001). Electrical responses reveal the temporal dynamics of brain events during involuntary attention switching. European Journal of Neuroscience, 14(5), 877–883.PubMedCrossRef

Friedman, D., Cycowicz, Y. M., & Gaeta, H. (2001). The novelty P3: an event-related brain potential (ERP) sign of the brain’s evaluation of novelty. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 25(4), 355–373.PubMedCrossRef

Hillyard, S. A., Hink, R. F., Schwent, V. L., & Picton, T. W. (1973). Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science, 182(4108), 177–180. doi:10.1126/science.182.4108.177.PubMedCrossRef

Horváth, J., & Winkler, I. (2010). Distraction in a continuous-stimulation detection task. Biological Psychology, 83(3), 229–238. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.01.004.

Horváth, J., Czigler, I., Birkás, E., Winkler, I., & Gervai, J. (2009). Age-related differences in distraction and reorientation in an auditory task. Neurobiology of Aging, 30(7), 1157–1172. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2007.10.003.PubMedCrossRef

Horváth, J., Roeber, U., Bendixen, A., & Schröger, E. (2008). Specific or general? The nature of attention set changes triggered by distracting auditory events. Brain Research, 1229, 193–203. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.06.096.

Horváth, J., Maess, B., Berti, S., & Schröger, E. (2008). Primary motor area contribution to attentional reorienting after distraction. NeuroReport, 19(4), 443–446.PubMedCrossRef

Horváth, J., Winkler, I., & Bendixen, A. (2008). Do N1/MMN, P3a, and RON form a strongly coupled chain reflecting the three stages of auditory distraction? Biological Psychology, 79(2), 139–147. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.04.001.PubMedCrossRef

Li, B., Parmentier, F. B. R., & Zhang, M. (2013). Behavioral distraction by auditory deviance is mediated by the sound’s informational value. Experimental Psychology, 60, 260–268. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000196.CrossRef

Ljungberg, J. K., Parmentier, F. B. R., Leiva, A., & Vega, N. (2012). The informational constraints of behavioral distraction by unexpected sounds: the role of event information. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1461–1468. doi:10.1037/a0028149.PubMedCrossRef

Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: a user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Munka, L., & Berti, S. (2006). Examining task-dependencies of different attentional processes as reflected in the P3a and reorienting negativity components of the human event-related brain potential. Neuroscience Letters, 396(3), 177–181. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.11.035.PubMedCrossRef

Näätänen, R., Gaillard, A. W., & Mäntysalo, S. (1978). Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychologica, 42(4), 313–329.PubMedCrossRef

Näätänen, Risto, & Picton, T. (1987). The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology, 24(4), 375–425. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1987.tb00311.x.PubMedCrossRef

Näätänen, Risto, Simpson, M., & Loveless, N. E. (1982). Stimulus deviance and evoked potentials. Biological Psychology, 14(1), 53–98.PubMedCrossRef

Nuwer, M. R., Comi, G., Emerson, R., Fuglsang-Frederiksen, A., Guérit, J.-M., Hinrichs, H., Ikeda, A., Luccas, F. J. C., Rappelsburger, P. (1998). IFCN standards for digital recording of clinical EEG. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 106(3), 259–261.

Okamoto, H., Stracke, H., Wolters, C. H., Schmael, F., & Pantev, C. (2007). Attention improves population-level frequency tuning in human auditory cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(39), 10383–10390. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2963-07.2007.PubMedCrossRef

Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2003). Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 434–447. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.434.PubMedCrossRef

Parmentier, F. B. R., Elsley, J. V., & Ljungberg, J. K. (2010). Behavioral distraction by auditory novelty is not only about novelty: the role of the distracter’s informational value. Cognition, 115(3), 504–511. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.002.PubMedCrossRef

Ritter, W., Paavilainen, P., Lavikainen, J., Reinikainen, K., Alho, K., Sams, M., et al. (1992). Event-related potentials to repetition and change of auditory stimuli. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 83(5), 306–321.PubMedCrossRef

Roeber, U., Berti, S., Müller, D., Widmann, A., & Schröger, E. (2009). Disentangling effects of auditory distraction and of stimulus-response sequence. Psychophysiology, 46(2), 425–438. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00766.x.PubMedCrossRef

Roeber, U., Berti, S., & Schröger, E. (2003). Auditory distraction with different presentation rates: an event-related potential and behavioral study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114(2), 341–349.PubMedCrossRef

Roeber, U., Berti, S., Widmann, A., & Schröger, E. (2005). Response repetition vs. response change modulates behavioral and electrophysiological effects of distraction. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), 451–456. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.10.001.PubMedCrossRef

Roeber, U., Widmann, A., & Schröger, E. (2003). Auditory distraction by duration and location deviants: a behavioral and event-related potential study. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(2), 347–357.PubMedCrossRef

SanMiguel, I., Linden, D., & Escera, C. (2010). Attention capture by novel sounds: distraction versus facilitation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(4), 481–515. doi:10.1080/09541440902930994.CrossRef

SanMiguel, I., Morgan, H. M., Klein, C., Linden, D., & Escera, C. (2010). On the functional significance of Novelty-P3: Facilitation by unexpected novel sounds. Biological Psychology, 83(2), 143–152. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.11.012.PubMedCrossRef

Schröger, E. (1996). A neural mechanism for involuntary attention shifts to changes in auditory stimulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(6), 527–539.PubMedCrossRef

Schröger, E., & Wolff, C. (1998a). Attentional orienting and reorienting is indicated by human event-related brain potentials. NeuroReport, 9(15), 3355–3358.PubMedCrossRef

Schröger, E., & Wolff, C. (1998b). Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of task-irrelevant sound change: A new distraction paradigm. Cognitive Brain Research, 7(1), 71–87.PubMedCrossRef

Wetzel, N., Schröger, E., & Widmann, A. (2013). The dissociation between the P3a event-related potential and behavioral distraction. Psychophysiology. doi:10.1111/psyp.12072 (in press).

Wetzel, N., Widmann, A., & Schröger, E. (2012). Distraction and facilitation—two faces of the same coin? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 664–674. doi:10.1037/a0025856.PubMed

Winkler, I. (2007). Interpreting the mismatch negativity. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21(3), 147–163. doi:10.1027/0269-8803.21.34.147.CrossRef

Titel: Sensory ERP effects in auditory distraction: did we miss the main event?
Auteur: János Horváth
Publicatiedatum: 01-05-2014
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2014
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0507-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2014

Auditory spatial negative priming: What is remembered of irrelevant sounds and their locations?

Editorial for special issue: “Auditory attention: merging paradigms and perspectives”

Inattentional deafness in music

Dissociable effects of auditory attention switching and stimulus–response compatibility

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

Analyzing distributional properties of interference effects across modalities: chances and challenges