Knowledge of sequence structure prevents auditory distraction: An ERP study

Abstract

Infrequent, salient stimuli often capture attention despite their task-irrelevancy, and disrupt on-going goal-directed behavior. A number of studies show that presenting cues signaling forthcoming deviants reduces distraction, which may be a "by-product" of cue-processing interference or the result of direct preparatory processes for the forthcoming distracter. In the present study, instead of "bursts" of cue information, information on the temporal structure of the stimulus sequence was provided. Young adults performed a spatial discrimination task where complex tones moving left or right were presented. In the predictable condition, every 7 th tone was a pitch-deviant, while in the random condition the position of deviants was random with a probability of 1/7. Whereas the early event-related potential correlates of deviance-processing (N1, and MMN) were unaffected by predictability, P3a amplitude was significantly reduced in the predictable condition, indicating that prevention of distraction was based on the knowledge about the temporal structure of the stimulus sequence.

Sound offset-related brain potentials show retained sensory processing, but increased cognitive control activity in older adults

“…As in previous studies (e.g., Berti and Schröger, 2001;Horváth, 2014Horváth, , 2016Volosin and Horváth, 2014), tone onsets were preceded by a negative-going ERP trend, suggesting that participants exploited the constant SOA to prepare for the tones. Tone onsets elicited the succession of P1, N1 and P2 waveforms, which were superimposed on the negative trend.…”

“…As in previous studies using fixed inter-onset-intervals in duration-or direction discrimination tasks (e.g., Berti and Schröger, 2001;Horváth, 2014Horváth, , 2016Volosin and Horváth, 2014), the stimulus onset was preceded by a negative ERP trend. The steepness of this pre-stimulus trend was calculated as the difference of the average amplitudes measured at in the 200-150 ms and the 50-0 ms intervals preceding tone onsets in each condition.…”

Hierarchy of prediction errors for auditory events in human temporal and frontal cortex

“…Volosin and Horváth (32) found the P3 response to be sensitive to periodicity, whereas early components, such as the N1 and the MMN, which are generated by sources in the auditory cortex, are unaffected, especially when participants were instructed to ignore the auditory stimulation (33,34). Effects of predictability at the MMN time window also depend on the interstimulus interval (ISI).…”

Effects of explicit knowledge and predictability on auditory distraction and target performance

“…In the current study we tested whether explicit knowledge about the occurrence of a distracting event, but without explicit cueing, would similarly abate distraction effects. That is, would knowledge about the irrelevance of an upcoming event, its predictability, be enough to abate distracting effects; or was there something specific about temporal cueing (e.g., with visual or other input occurring prior to each target) that primarily influenced the distraction effect observed in previous studies (Horváth et al, 2011; Horváth & Bendixen, 2012; Horváth, 2013; Sussman et al, 2003; Volosin & Horváth, 2014). Thus, a second issue addressed by the current paradigm was whether stimulus regularity of the sound input (predictability) would act as a form of implicit cueing, speeding reaction time to targets, and facilitating behavioral responses.…”