Musical expertise modulates the effects of visual perceptual load

Ro, Tony; Friggel, Ashley; Lavie, Nilli

doi:10.3758/app.71.4.671

Cited by 26 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…extensive experience of processing social stimuli). However, it has been demonstrated that expertise with a stimulus category can provide immunity from perceptual load effects: in contrast to musically naive participants, participants with high levels of musical expertise processed images of musical instruments even under conditions of high perceptual load (Ro, Friggel, & Lavie, 2009). In the case of imitation, therefore, it also appears plausible that any privileged processing may result from experience, because the function -unique to imitation -of mapping observed onto performed movements has been demonstrated to be highly experience-dependent (for reviews, see Catmur, 2013;Cook, Bird, Catmur, Press, & Heyes, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic imitation? Imitative compatibility affects responses at high perceptual load.

Catmur¹

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Imitation involves matching the visual representation of another’s action onto the observer’s own motor program for that action. However, there has been some debate regarding the extent to which imitation is “automatic”—that is, occurs without attention. Participants performed a perceptual load task in which images of finger movements were presented as distractors. Responses to target letter stimuli were performed via finger movements that could be imitatively compatible (requiring the same finger movement) or incompatible with the distractor movements: In this common stimulus–response compatibility manipulation, the stimulus set comprises images of the response movements, producing an imitative compatibility effect. Attention to the distractor movements was manipulated by altering perceptual load through increasing the number of nontarget letter stimuli. If imitation requires attention, then at high perceptual load, imitative compatibility should not affect response times. In contrast, imitative compatibility influenced response times at high perceptual load, demonstrating that distractor movements were processed. However, the compatibility effect was reversed, suggesting that longer response times at high perceptual load tap into an inhibitory stage of distractor movement processing. A follow-up experiment manipulating temporal delay between targets and distractor movements supported this explanation. Further experiments confirmed that nonmovement distractor stimuli in the same configuration produced standard perceptual load effects and that results were not solely due to effector compatibility. These data suggest that imitation can occur without attention.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic imitation? Imitative compatibility affects responses at high perceptual load.

Catmur¹

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, extensive training (e.g., as a consequence of a particular Face Specific Capacity Limits 26 expertise) can lead to category-selective processing for the objects of expertise that has similar characteristic to face processing. Future studies may wish to explore the possibility that other stimuli of expertise (for example birds for bird watchers, Gauthier et al, 2000; musical instruments for musicians, e.g., Ro, Friggel, & Lavie, 2009) may also have their own domain-specific capacity limits. Indeed Ro et al (2009) have shown that musicians were susceptible to interference by distractor images of musical instruments presented in a response competition task (requiring participants to classify names of musical instruments)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual load effects on processing distractor faces indicate face-specific capacity limits

Thoma

Lavie

2013

Visual Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In low-load searches, such biasing would be weaker, such that visual cortical resources could also be used to process flanking stimuli. This spatial processing bias may, however, be altered or even overridden by stimuli prioritized by attention, such as pictures of faces (e.g., Lavie et al, 2003) or highly meaningful objects (e.g., Ro et al, 2009). This spatial processing bias might also be altered by stimuli from another modality that are prioritized by attention.…”

Section: Greater Influence Of Crossmodal Stimuli Under High Loadmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lavie, Ro, and Russell (2003) and He and Chen (2010) both showed that RTs to categorize centrally presented words in high-load searches were influenced by peripherally presented faces that were strongly related to the words. In addition, Ro, Friggel, and Lavie (2009), using a task similar to Lavie et al (2003), demonstrated that prior experience can impact attention control settings when processing nonface visual stimuli. When expert musicians classified centrally presented words as naming one of two types of musical instruments presented in high-load searches, their RTs were influenced by peripherally presented pictures of musical instruments that varied in congruity with the target word.…”

Section: Greater Influence Of Crossmodal Stimuli Under High Loadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Now hear this: Inattentional deafness depends on task relatedness

Tellinghuisen

Cohen

Cooper

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixed results have been found for the impact of auditory information presented during high-perceptual-load visual search tasks, with some studies showing large effects and others indicating inattentional deafness, with such stimuli going largely undetected. In three experiments, we demonstrated that task relatedness is a key factor in whether extraneous auditory stimuli impact high-load visual searches. Experiment 1 addressed a methodological concern (e.g., Lavie Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75-82, 2005) regarding the timing of the relative onsets and offsets of task-related, tobe-ignored auditory stimuli and visual search arrays in experiments that have shown auditory distractor effects. Robust auditory distractor effects were found in each timing condition, and no inattentional deafness for high-load searches. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated that the relationship between the auditory stimuli and visual targets determined whether attention was captured and whether the response times to identify targets were impacted. Auditory stimuli that named a response-specific category influenced responses to targets mapped exclusively to one response, but not to the same targets mapped nonexclusively. These compatibility effects were larger if the distractors named an actual target item than if they named the category to which the item belonged. This pattern suggests that to-be-ignored auditory information that closely relates to a visual target search task influences the processing of that task, particularly in a high-perceptual-load search.

show abstract

Musical expertise modulates the effects of visual perceptual load

Cited by 26 publications

References 29 publications

Automatic imitation? Imitative compatibility affects responses at high perceptual load.

Automatic imitation? Imitative compatibility affects responses at high perceptual load.

Perceptual load effects on processing distractor faces indicate face-specific capacity limits

Now hear this: Inattentional deafness depends on task relatedness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About