Two separate mechanisms underlie auditory change detection and involuntary control of attention

Attention switching function of memory-comparison-based change detection system in the visual modality

“…Since size decrements are assumed to only engage memory-comparison-based change detection, they are likely to cause weaker behavioral distraction than size increments. Although further investigations on behavioral distraction are necessary, the present result might be in line with previous findings that behavioral distraction was qualitatively different according to the involvement of memory-comparison-based change detection and refractoriness-based rareness detection (e.g., Alho et al, 1997; Escera et al 19 1998Jääskeläinen et al, 1996;Rinne et al, 2006;Yago et al, 2003).…”

“…Responses were scored as hits if the correct button was pressed within 100-800 ms after the were subtracted from those in response to Large and Small deviant stimuli, respectively (e.g., Legrain et al, 2005;Nager et al, 2001;Rinne et al, 2006). Since the effects of stimulus changes on ERPs were not affected by the time-interval conditions (e.g., Escera et al, 2001;Schröger, 1996), to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, difference waves were pooled over the time-interval conditions.¹…”

“…To elucidate the attention switching function of the change detection system, several auditory studies have used the distraction paradigm, in which the effects of task-irrelevant infrequent stimulus changes on behavioral and event-related brain potential (ERP) measures were investigated (e.g., Alho et al, 1997;Berti and Schröger, 2001;Escera et al, 1998Escera et al, , 2001Escera et al, , 2002Jääskeläinen et al, 1996;Rinne et al, 2006;Schröger, 1996;Schröger et al, Visual distraction & ERPs 4 2000; Schröger and Wolff, 1998;Yago et al, 2001Yago et al, , 2003. In a typical auditory distraction paradigm, participants were required to discriminate between two equiprobable stimuli that differed in duration as quickly and accurately as possible, while task-irrelevant pitch changes were presented infrequently (e.g., Berti and Schröger, 2001;Schröger et al, 2000;Schröger and Wolff, 1998).…”

“…First, the present study examined the effects of infrequent energy decrements (i.e., stimulus-size decrements) as well as infrequent energy increments (stimulus-size increments) on behavioral and ERP measures (e.g., Escera et al, 2002;Rinne et al, 2006). Infrequent energy increments are assumed to engage both memory-comparison-based change detection and refractoriness-based rareness detection, whereas infrequent energy decrements are assumed to engage memory-comparison-based change detection but to not strongly engage refractoriness-based rareness detection (for the associated logic, see e.g., Kaukoranta et al, 1989;Näätänen et al, 1989;Woldorff et al, 1991).…”

Distributed cortical networks for focused auditory attention and distraction

“…Keywords auditory processing; attention; change detection; distraction; fMRI While effective cognitive performance requires focusing of attention on relevant information and ignoring irrelevant sensory inputs, one must retain the ability to respond to potentially important novel events in the environment. Previous studies have used the so-called auditory distraction paradigm [3,7,26,32] to examine the effect of task-irrelevant sound changes on behavior and event-related potentials (ERPs). In this paradigm, subjects discriminate sounds on one dimension (e.g., sound duration) while task-irrelevant changes occur in some other dimension (e.g., pitch) of the same sounds.…”