Disruption in neural phase synchrony is related to identification of inattentional deafness in real‐world setting

Abstract

Individuals often have reduced ability to hear alarms in real world situations (e.g., anesthesia monitoring, flying airplanes) when attention is focused on another task, sometimes with devastating consequences. This phenomenon is called inattentional deafness and usually occurs under critical high workload conditions. It is difficult to simulate the critical nature of these tasks in the laboratory. In this study, dry electroencephalography is used to investigate inattentional deafness in real flight while piloting an airplane. The pilots participating in the experiment responded to audio alarms while experiencing critical high workload situations. It was found that missed relative to detected alarms were marked by reduced stimulus evoked phase synchrony in theta and alpha frequencies (6-14 Hz) from 120 to 230 ms poststimulus onset. Correlation of alarm detection performance with intertrial coherence measures of neural phase synchrony showed different frequency and time ranges for detected and missed alarms. These results are consistent with selective attentional processes actively disrupting oscillatory coherence in sensory networks not involved with the primary task (piloting in this case) under critical high load conditions. This hypothesis is corroborated by analyses of flight parameters showing greater maneuvering associated with difficult phases of flight occurring during missed alarms. Our results suggest modulation of neural oscillation is a general mechanism of attention utilizing enhancement of phase synchrony to sharpen alarm perception during successful divided attention, and disruption of phase synchrony in brain networks when attentional demands of the primary task are great, such as in the case of inattentional deafness.

Neural signature of inattentional deafness

“…In our study, the evidence of the involvement of the SMFC/pre‐SMA and the IFG in the phenomenon of inattentional deafness in ecological conditions paves the way to the use of these regions as neural signatures of this phenomenon in real‐world conditions. Taking this knowledge into account in the design of Brain Computer Interfaces monitoring alarm perception [Callan et al, ], one could develop neuroadaptive automation that could attempt to reduce the workload or to present the alarms in a more salient way when the regions associated with the attentional bottleneck are active [Régis et al, ].…”

“…Studies in the aeronautical context [Dehais et al ] confirmed that such a phenomenon could take place in the cockpit as pilots mainly rely on visual information to operate the aircraft. For instance, experiments involving high mental demand in flight simulators [Scannella et al, ] and in actual flight conditions [Callan et al, ] led to high rates of inattentional deafness with both studies showing, respectively, 56% and 55.85% missed auditory alarms.…”

A Neuroergonomics Approach to Mental Workload, Engagement and Human Performance

“…Secondly, attentional states, such as inattentional deafness and blindness, result from the activation of an attentional network involving the inferior frontal gyrus, the insula and the superior medial frontal cortex (Tombu et al, 2011;Callan et al, 2018;Dehais et al, 2019). These regions represent potential candidates upon which to identify attentional failures that can be complemented by monitoring dedicated primary perceptual (see Hutchinson, 2019, for a review) and integrative cortices (Molloy et al, 2015), as well as performing connectivity analyses (Callan et al, 2018). In addition, inattentional phenomena may result from the suppression of activity in the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ), a part of the ventral network, which also blocks reorientation of attention and the processing of unexpected stimuli (Marois et al, 2004;Todd et al, 2005).…”

“…MPFC (Harrivel et al, 2013;Durantin et al, 2015) DLPFC (Harrivel et al, 2013) DLPFC (Durantin et al, 2014;Fairclough et al, 2019) Left PFC (Kalia et al, 2018) occipital lobe (Kojima and Suzuki, 2010) EEG α power over occipital sites (Gouraud et al, 2018) (α and (β power (auditory stimuli) (Braboszcz and Delorme, 2011) (θ power (auditory stimuli) (Braboszcz and Delorme, 2011) N1 (Kam et al, 2011) N4 (O'Connell et al, 2009) P1 (Kam et al, 2011) P2 (Braboszcz and Delorme, 2011) P3 (Schooler et al, 2011) frontal θ power (Gärtner et al, 2014) P3 (Dierolf et al, 2017) frontal (θ power and parietal (α power (Ewing et al, 2016;Fairclough and Ewing, 2017) Event Related Coherence between midfrontal and right-frontal electrodes (Carrillo-De-La-Pena and García-Larrea, 2007) (α band power (Mathewson et al, 2009) P1 (Pourtois et al, 2006;Mathewson et al, 2009) P2 (Mathewson et al, 2009) N170 (Pourtois et al, 2006) P3 (Pourtois et al, 2006;Mathewson et al, 2009) N1 (Callan et al, 2018;Dehais et al, 2019a,b) P3 (Puschmann et al, 2013;Scannella et al, 2013;Giraudet et al, 2015b;Dehais et al, 2019a,b) (α power in IFG (Dehais et al, 2...…”

An ERP Study to Investigate Age-Related Differences in Sensory Gating and Auditory Processing

“…The N100 ERP is a neurological marker for auditory processing (Callan, et al, 2018;Hall, 1992). The N100 is a negative deflection that typically occurs between 80-150 milliseconds following the onset of an unexpected auditory stimulus (Sur & Sinha, 2009).…”