Perceptual and cognitive task difficulty has differential effects on auditory distraction

Muller-Gass, Alexandra; Schröger, Erich

doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.020

Cited by 65 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in the above-mentioned social conversation example, it would not be constructive for the listener to completely shut off the other person, even though the talker’s voice interferes with their auditory WM. Consistent with these notions, experiments that emulate conditions where relevant and irrelevant sounds are embedded in overlapping streams suggest prominent auditory ERP (Berti and Schroger, 2003; Muller-Gass and Schroger, 2007) and behavioral (Dalton et al, 2009) effects to irrelevant distracters also under high WM load. This has lead to an interpretation that distracter suppression requires WM resources and active control (Berti and Schroger, 2003; Dalton et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Suppression of irrelevant sounds during auditory working memory

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditory working memory (WM) processing in everyday acoustic environments depends on our ability to maintain relevant information online in our minds, and to suppress interference caused by competing incoming stimuli. A challenge in communication settings is that the relevant content and irrelevant inputs may emanate from a common source, such as a talkative conversationalist. An open question is how the WM system deals with such interference. Will the distracters become inadvertently filtered before processing for meaning because the primary WM operations deplete all available processing resources? Or are they suppressed post perceptually, through an active control process? We tested these alternative hypotheses by measuring magnetoencephalography (MEG), EEG, and functional MRI (fMRI) during a phonetic auditory continuous performance task. Contextual WM maintenance load was manipulated by adjusting the number of “filler” letter sounds in-between cue and target letter sounds. Trial-to-trial variability of pre- and post-stimulus activations in fMRI-informed cortical MEG/EEG estimates was analyzed within and across 14 subjects using generalized linear mixed effect (GLME) models. High contextual WM maintenance load suppressed left auditory cortex (AC) activations around 250–300 ms after the onset of irrelevant phonetic sounds. This effect coincided with increased 10–14 Hz alpha-range oscillatory functional connectivity between the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and left AC. Suppression of AC responses to irrelevant sounds during active maintenance of the task context also correlated with increased pre-stimulus 7–15 Hz alpha power. Our results suggest that under high auditory WM load, irrelevant sounds are suppressed through a “late” active suppression mechanism, which prevents short-term consolidation of irrelevant information without affecting the initial screening of potentially meaningful stimuli. The results also suggest that AC alpha oscillations play an inhibitory role during auditory WM processing.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Suppression of irrelevant sounds during auditory working memory

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this case, as WM load increases fewer resources would be available to suppress responses to distractors that generate a response conflict. Indeed, Muller-Gass and Schröger (2007) have shown that when distraction is caused by unexpected deviations in a task-irrelevant feature of the target stimulus, WM load increases distraction generated by these deviations, as both the task-relevant and the distracting features of the target stimulus benefit from increased processing under load.…”

Section: Wm Effects Might Depend On Task-relevance Of the Attention-cmentioning

confidence: 97%

Attention capture by novel sounds: Distraction versus facilitation

SanMiguel

Linden

Escera

2010

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unexpected sounds have been shown to capture attention, triggering an orienting response. However, opposing effects of this attention capture on the performance of a concomitant visual task have been reported, in some instances leading to distraction and in others to facilitation. Moreover, the orienting response towards the unexpected stimuli can be modulated by working memory (WM) load, but the direction of this modulation has been another issue of controversy. In four experiments, we aimed to establish the critical factors that determine whether novel sounds facilitate or disrupt task performance and the modulation of these effects by Correspondence should be addressed to We thank Margaret C. Jackson for providing us with the original task, Helen Morgan for general support during data acquisition, Á lex Á lvarez Mora for help during data collection and analysis, and Francisco J. Díaz Santaella for providing help in operationalising the model.

show abstract

“…Experimental design. One group of participants was assigned to a color-808 discrimination task in which they had to respond to the color of each visual stimulus 809 36 constituted of two circles either both blue or both yellow (a). In the 0-back condition, they 810 responded to the color of the current stimulus.…”

Section: Figure Captions 806mentioning

confidence: 99%

Shielding cognition from nociception with working memory

Legrain

Crombez

Plaghki

et al. 2013

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

25Because pain often signals the occurrence of potential tissue damage, nociceptive 26 stimuli have the capacity to capture attention and interfere with ongoing cognitive activities. 27Working memory is known to guide the orientation of attention by maintaining goal 28 priorities active during the achievement of a task. This study investigated whether the 29 cortical processing of nociceptive stimuli and their ability to capture attention are under the 30 control of working memory. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded while 31 participants performed primary tasks on visual targets that required or did not require 32 rehearsal in working memory (1-back vs. 0-back conditions). The visual targets were shortly 33 preceded by task-irrelevant tactile stimuli. Occasionally, in order to distract the participants, 34 the tactile stimuli were replaced by novel nociceptive stimuli. In the 0-back conditions, task 35 performance was disrupted by the occurrence of the nociceptive distracters, as reflected by 36 the increased reaction times in trials with novel nociceptive distracters as compared to trials 37 with standard tactile distracters. In the 1-back conditions, such a difference disappeared 38 suggesting that attentional capture and task disruption induced by nociceptive distracters 39 was suppressed by working memory, regardless of task demands. Most importantly, in the 40 conditions involving working memory, the magnitude of nociceptive ERPs, including ERP 41 components at early latency, were significantly reduced. This indicates that working memory 42 is able to modulate the cortical processing of nociceptive input already at its earliest stages, 43 and could explain why working memory reduces consequently ability of nociceptive stimuli 44 to capture attention and disrupt performance of the primary task. It is concluded that 45 protecting cognitive processing against pain interference is best guaranteed by controlling 46 the disengagement of attention away from nociceptive stimuli by keeping out of working 47 memory pain-related information. 48 3

show abstract

Perceptual and cognitive task difficulty has differential effects on auditory distraction

Cited by 65 publications

References 21 publications

Suppression of irrelevant sounds during auditory working memory

Suppression of irrelevant sounds during auditory working memory

Attention capture by novel sounds: Distraction versus facilitation

Shielding cognition from nociception with working memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About