Top-down control over involuntary attention switching in the auditory modality

Abstract

We tested the effects of predictability on involuntary attention switching to task-irrelevant sound changes (distraction). Behavioral and neurophysiological evidence are provided, showing that the predictability of task-irrelevantsound changes eliminates effects of distraction even though the automatic auditory change detection system remains responsive. Two indices of distraction, slower task performance and cortical brain responses associatedwith attention switching, were seen only in the unpredictable condition, in which the irrelevant acoustic changes were unexpected. Attention was not involuntarily drawn away from the primary task when the subjects had foreknowledge of when the irrelevant changes would occur. These results demonstrate attentional control over orienting to sound changes and suggest that involuntary attention switching occurs mainly when an irrelevant stimulus change is unexpected. The present data allowed observation of the temporal dynamics of attention switching in the human brain.

Knowledge of sequence structure prevents auditory distraction: An ERP study

“…This result fits previous studies which used cues preceding deviants to prevent distraction (Horváth et al, 2011;Horváth and Bendixen, 2012;Sussman et al, 2003;Wetzel and Schröger, 2007;Wetzel et al, 2009). Because information on the tone sequence and forthcoming deviants was constantly available during stimulation, a "burst"-like cue processing was not required.…”

“…The N1-effect and MMN reflect the activity of sensory change detection processes (Näätänen, 1982). P3a is generally assumed to reflect involuntary attention switching (Friedman et al, 2001;Polich, 2007), while RON is theorised to reflect the reorientation of attention to the original task (Schröger and Wolff, 1998a;Sussman et al, 2003). Similar results were found in auditory-visual paradigms in which targets were visual stimuli (e. g. odd or even numbers) and the distractors were sounds (Escera et al, 1998(Escera et al, , 2000(Escera et al, , 2001.…”

“…A number of studies show that the sensory system automatically responds to unpredictable, rare stimulus events (for a summary, see Escera et al, 2000), which may lead to involuntary allocation of attention to such events (Schröger, 1997). Recent studies show that when forthcoming, potentially distracting events are preceded by informative cues, the effects of distraction are reduced or eliminated (Sussman et al, 2003;Horváth et al, 2011;Horváth and Bendixen, 2012;Wetzel and Schröger, 2007;Wetzel et al, 2009Wetzel et al, , 2012. The goal of the present study was to investigate whether the prevention of distraction was also possible by providing information on forthcoming distracters without relying on explicit cues.…”

“…Sussman et al (2003) utilized the paradigm developed by Schröger and Wolff (1998b) but they presented visual cues before each tone. In the predictable condition, cues indicated whether the forthcoming tone was a standard or a pitch-deviant.…”

Beyond common resources: the cortical basis for resolving task interference

“…Many previous studies have implicated these regions (particularly the DLPFC) in top-down control of processing, including the domains of selective attention (Mathalon et al, 2004;Milham et al, 2003), task-switching (Aron et al, 2004;Sussman et al, 2003), spatial attention (Giesbrecht et al, 2003;, sustained attention (Lawrence et al, 2003;Ortuno et al, 2002), emotional (Boshuisen et al, 2002;Milham et al, 2003), and autonomic control (Critchley et al, 2002(Critchley et al, , 2003. The finding that activation in this region (along with the right DLPFC) was significantly greater for No-go trials when compared to the Go trials is also consistent with the studies suggesting it monitors for response conflict Carter et al, 2001), whereby conflict signals the need for the allocation of additional control by the DLPFC (MacDonald et al, 2000).…”