Individual differences in distractibility: An update and a model

Sörqvist, Patrik; Rönnberg, Jerker

doi:10.1002/pchj.47

Cited by 57 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 169 publications

(192 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This explanation is in line with the predictions of the task‐engagement/distraction trade‐off model by Sörqvist and Rönnberg (). In dual‐task studies investigating auditory distraction under visual WM updating load, these authors and others observed that task‐irrelevant auditory stimuli caused less interference under high as compared to low visual WM updating load (San Miguel, Corral, & Escera, ; Sörqvist, Stenfelt, & Rönnberg, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

When flanker meets the n‐back: What EEG and pupil dilation data reveal about the interplay between the two central‐executive working memory functions inhibition and updating

Scharinger¹,

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the interplay between inhibition and updating, two executive working memory (WM) functions. We applied a novel task paradigm consisting of flanker stimuli presented within an n-back task and studied the interaction between inhibitory demands and load on WM updating using behavioral measures, EEG, and pupil dilation. In contrast to studies that examine the interaction between inhibitory demands and load on WM storage components, the current task paradigm allowed testing the interaction between the executive WM components updating and inhibition. We found a reduced flanker interference effect for the highest (2-back) updating load condition compared to lower updating load conditions on most measures. We interpret these findings as indicating that inhibitory control and WM updating are closely intertwined executive functions. Increased load on updating seemed to result in an overall more activated attentional network thus enhancing inhibitory control, such that task performance is less susceptible to distracting information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

When flanker meets the n‐back: What EEG and pupil dilation data reveal about the interplay between the two central‐executive working memory functions inhibition and updating

Scharinger¹,

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While enhanced negativity in the P1/N1 range under low WM load during SI fits well with the Efforts Model and task-engagement/distraction trade-off model [68,69], there is room for another interpretation. It is possible that when WM load increases, the task-irrelevant probes are processed less, while the task-relevant source message still receives the same amount of attention as it does under low WM load.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Testing the efforts model of simultaneous interpreting: An ERP study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We utilized the event-related potential (ERP) technique to study neural activity associated with different levels of working memory (WM) load during simultaneous interpretation (SI) of continuous prose. The amplitude of N1 and P1 components elicited by task-irrelevant tone probes was significantly modulated as a function of WM load but not the direction of interpretation. Furthermore, the latency of the P1 increased significantly with WM load. The WM load effect on N1 latency, however, did not reach significance. Larger negativity under lower WM loads suggests that more attention is available to process the source message, providing the first electrophysiological evidence in support of the Efforts Model of SI. Relationships between the direction of interpretation and median WM load are also discussed.

show abstract

“…In this respect, one possibility is that, like with many abnormalities that co-vary with inferior WMC (Sörqvist & Rönnberg, 2014), the low WMC of high-schizotypy individuals underpins their greater susceptibility to distraction. This hypothesis is tested in the experiment reported here in two ways.…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased Distractibility in Schizotypy: Independent of Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity?

Marsh

Vachon

Sörqvist

2017

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals with schizophrenia typically show increased levels of distractibility. This has been attributed to impaired working memory capacity (WMC), since lower WMC is typically associated with higher distractibility and schizophrenia is typically associated with impoverished WMC. Here, participants performed verbal and spatial serial recall tasks that were accompanied by to-be-ignored speech tokens. For the few trials wherein one speech token was replaced with a different token, impairment was produced to task scores (a deviation effect). Participants subsequently completed a schizotypy questionnaire and a WMC measure. Higher schizotypy scores were associated with lower WMC (as measured with operation span [OSPAN]), but WMC and schizotypy scores explained unique variance in relation to the mean magnitude of the deviation effect. These results suggest that schizotypy is associated with heightened domain-general distractibility, but that this is independent of its relationship with WMC.

show abstract

Individual differences in distractibility: An update and a model

Cited by 57 publications

References 169 publications

When flanker meets the n‐back: What EEG and pupil dilation data reveal about the interplay between the two central‐executive working memory functions inhibition and updating

When flanker meets the n‐back: What EEG and pupil dilation data reveal about the interplay between the two central‐executive working memory functions inhibition and updating

Testing the efforts model of simultaneous interpreting: An ERP study

Increased Distractibility in Schizotypy: Independent of Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About