Utility-Based Early Modulation of Processing Distracting Stimulus Information

Abstract

Humans are selective information processors who efficiently prevent goal-inappropriate stimulus information to gain control over their actions. Nonetheless, stimuli, which are both unnecessary for solving a current task and liable to cue an incorrect response (i.e., "distractors"), frequently modulate task performance, even when consistently paired with a physical feature that makes them easily discernible from target stimuli. Current models of cognitive control assume adjustment of the processing of distractor information based on the overall distractor utility (e.g., predictive value regarding the appropriate response, likelihood to elicit conflict with target processing). Although studies on distractor interference have supported the notion of utility-based processing adjustment, previous evidence is inconclusive regarding the specificity of this adjustment for distractor information and the stage(s) of processing affected. To assess the processing of distractors during sensory-perceptual phases we applied EEG recording in a stimulus identification task, involving successive distractor-target presentation, and manipulated the overall distractor utility. Behavioral measures replicated previously found utility modulations of distractor interference. Crucially, distractor-evoked visual potentials (i.e., posterior N1) were more pronounced in high-utility than low-utility conditions. This effect generalized to distractors unrelated to the utility manipulation, providing evidence for item-unspecific adjustment of early distractor processing to the experienced utility of distractor information.

Strategic control over extent and timing of distractor-based response activation.

“…Our findings show that the proportion of congruent distractortarget combinations already affected early ERP components (replicating findings by Wendt et al, 2014). These modulations here are seen in both positive (P1) and negative (N1) polarity effects thus resembling classical P1/N1 attention effects.…”

“…This is what we did in the present study. By focusing on the temporal aspect of the adjustment of distractor processing, we thereby extended the study by Wendt et al (2014). More precisely, including a longer target delay allows the systematic investigation of potential strategic temporal adjustments of distractor-based response activations.…”

Adoption of Task-Specific Sets of Visual Attention

“…Distinguishing between these possibilities on the basis of purely behavioral findings may be difficult. Complimentary analysis of physiological measures reflecting early processing stages of stimuli presented in the different locations seem a viable option to shed light on this issue (see, Wendt et al, 2014b ; Jost et al, 2017 , for application of a similar method concerning the question of adjustment of processing of distractors presented in advance of the target). Third, as noted in the “Introduction,” Longman et al (2013) observed an effect of preparation on eye fixations in regions of relevance for the two tasks between which participants switched, suggesting that overt attentional selection is prepared when switching between tasks.…”

Multiple Routes to Control in the Prime-Target Task: Congruence Sequence Effects Emerge Due to Modulation of Irrelevant Prime Activity and Utilization of Temporal Order Information

“…Accordingly, we believe that it might be premature to generalize findings from Stroop or flanker to other interference tasks without further empirical tests. Therefore, we aim to elaborate in more detail on the structure of control in the prime-target task ( Hazeltine, Lightman, Schwarb, & Schumacher, 2011 ; Jost, Wendt, Luna-Rodriguez, Löw, & Jacobsen, 2017 ; Kiesel, Kunde, Hoffman, 2006 ; Kunde & Wühr, 2006 ; Reuss, Desender, Kiesel, & Kunde, 2014 ; Wendt, Luna-Rodriguez, & Jacobsen, 2014 ).…”