Monetary incentives have only limited effects on auditory distraction: evidence for the automaticity of cross-modal attention capture

Abstract

The duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction postulates that two distinct forms of auditory distraction can be distinguished by whether or not they can be cognitively controlled. While the interference-by-process component of auditory distraction is postulated to be automatic and independent of cognitive control, the stimulus-aspecific attention capture by auditory deviants and the stimulus-specific attentional diversion by auditorily presented distractor sentences should be suppressed by increased task engagement. Here we test whether incentive-induced changes in task engagement affect the disruption of serial recall by auditory deviants (Experiment 1) and distractor sentences (Experiment 2). Monetary incentives substantially affected recall performance in both experiments. However, the incentive-induced changes in task engagement had only limited effects on auditory distraction. In Experiment 2, increased task engagement was associated with a small decrease of distraction relative to a quiet condition, but strong effects of auditory distraction on performance persisted in conditions of high task engagement in both experiments. Most importantly, and in contrast to the predictions of the duplex-mechanism account, the effects of stimulus-aspecific attention capture (Experiment 1) and stimulus-specific attentional diversion (Experiment 2) remained unaffected by incentive-induced changes in task engagement. These findings are consistent with an automatic-capture account according to which only the processes responsible for the deliberate memorization of the target items are dependent on controlled mental effort while the attention capture by auditory deviants and the attentional diversion by distractor speech are largely automatic.

Positive and negative mood states do not influence cross-modal auditory distraction in the serial-recall paradigm

“…The results thus support the conceptualization of auditory distraction as a primarily stimulus-driven process that is prevalent in related fields of research [e.g., 3 , 4 ]. Specifically, the results are in line with an automatic-capture account according to which both the auditory-deviant effect and the changing-state effect arise in an automatic fashion from the obligatory perceptual processing of changes and deviations in the to-be ignored auditory channel [ 8 , 21 , 50 ].…”

“…Participants completed eight steady-state trials, eight auditory-deviant trials and eight changing-state trials in a randomized order. This number of trials per condition is typical for experiments using the serial-recall paradigm [e.g., 8 , 63 , 64 ]. Each trial was initiated by pressing the space bar of the computer keyboard.…”

“…It is at least conceivable that the balance of these conflicting goals is largely affected by emotional factors which would imply that mood states are of central importance for understanding auditory distraction. Alternatively, it is also possible that auditory stimuli disrupt performance in a primarily stimulus-driven manner in which case the mood state of the individual should be of little importance [e.g., 8 ]. The aim of the present study is to test the effect of mood on auditory distraction in four well-powered studies, relying on effective mood-induction procedures and the well-established serial-recall paradigm to assess the behavioural effects of auditory distraction on working memory.…”

“…An alternative view is that auditory distraction is a primarily stimulus-driven process. Specifically, it has been proposed that the detection of changes or unexpected events automatically triggers additional processing which aims at determining the relevance of the eliciting events [ 8 , 50 ]. According to this assumption, distraction occurs as an automatic consequence of the perceptual processing of the auditory input.…”

“…According to this assumption, distraction occurs as an automatic consequence of the perceptual processing of the auditory input. Therefore, distraction by auditory changes and auditory deviants should be primarily determined by perceptual characteristics of the auditory input (i.e., the degree to which it deviates from what is expected based on previous stimulation) and should be largely independent of the individual’s emotional-motivational state [ 8 , 21 , 50 ]. This assumption leads to the prediction that both the auditory-deviant effect and the changing-state effect should be independent of positive and negative mood states.…”