‘What’s in a name?’ ‘No more than when it's mine own’. Evidence from auditory oddball distraction

Ljungberg, Jessica K.; Parmentier, Fabrice B. R.; Jones, Dylan M.; Marsja, Erik; Neely, Gregory

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.05.009

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, we coded type of reward , that is, the reward that was associated with distractors. While some studies used primary rewards that have higher biological relevance, such as food (Piech, Pastorino, & Zald, 2010) or odor (Pool et al, 2014), others used secondary rewards that have acquired their value through socialization, such as money, points, or people’s own names (Ljungberg, Parmentier, Jones, Marsja, & Neely, 2014). Third, we coded the ratio of low versus high , that is, the ratio between how much money participants received on low versus high-reward trials (note: this moderator was only coded for studies that used money or points).…”

Section: Aim 3: To Provide Methodological Guidelines For Studying Rew...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reward-driven distraction: A meta-analysis.

Rusz

Pelley²,

Kompier

et al. 2020

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People have a strong tendency to attend to reward cues, even if these cues are irrelevant to their current goal or their current task. When reward cues are goal-irrelevant, their presence may impair cognitive performance. In this meta-analysis, we quantitatively examined the rapidly growing literature on the impact of reward-related distractors on cognitive performance. We included 91 studies (N = 2,362) that used different cognitive paradigms (e.g., visual search, conflict processing) and reward-related stimuli (e.g., money, attractive food). Overall, results showed that reward-related distractors impaired cognitive performance across different tasks and stimuli, with a small effect size (Standardized Mean Change = .347). Between-study heterogeneity was large, suggesting that researchers can plausibly expect to sometimes find reversed effects (i.e., reward-related distractors boosting performance). We further showed that the average reward-driven distraction effect was robust across different reward-learning mechanisms, contexts, and methodological choices, and that this effect existed regardless of explicit task instructions to ignore distractors. In sum, the findings of this meta-analysis support the notion that cognitive processes can be thwarted by reward cues. We discuss these findings against the background of distraction-related phenomena as they are studied in clinical, educational, and work psychology.

show abstract

Section: Aim 3: To Provide Methodological Guidelines For Studying Rew...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reward-driven distraction: A meta-analysis.

Rusz

Pelley²,

Kompier

et al. 2020

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Irrelevant auditory information is ubiquitous in our everyday lives. This is not merely inconvenient, since it may also have a marked disruptive effect on cognitive performance (Beaman, Hanczakowski & Jones, 2014; Elliott et al, 2016; Hughes & Marsh, 2017; Ljungberg, Parmentier, Jones, Marsja & Neely, 2014; Marsh, Röer, Bell & Buchner, 2014; Vachon, Labonté & Marsh, 2017). However, not every background sound is likely to be recognized as a potential source of disruption.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognition in Auditory Distraction: How Expectations about Distractibility Influence the Irrelevant Sound Effect

Röer¹,

Rummel

Bell

et al. 2017

Journal of Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Task-irrelevant, to-be-ignored sound disrupts serial short-term memory for visually presented items compared to a quiet control condition. We tested whether disruption by changing state irrelevant sound is modulated by expectations about the degree to which distractors would disrupt serial recall performance. The participants' expectations were manipulated by providing the (bogus) information that the irrelevant sound would be either easy or difficult to ignore. In Experiment 1, piano melodies were used as auditory distractors. Participants who expected the degree of disruption to be low made more errors in serial recall than participants who expected the degree of disruption to be high, independent of whether distractors were present or not. Although expectation had no effect on the magnitude of disruption, participants in the easy-to-ignore group reported after the experiment that they were less disrupted by the irrelevant sound than participants in the difficult-to-ignore group. In Experiment 2, spoken texts were used as auditory distractors. Expectations about the degree of disruption did not affect serial recall performance. Moreover, the subjective and objective distraction by irrelevant speech was similar in the easy-to-ignore group and in the difficult-to-ignore group. Thus, while metacognitive beliefs about whether the auditory distractors would be easy or difficult to ignore can have an effect on task engagement and subjective distractibility ratings, they do not seem to have an effect on the actual degree to which the auditory distractors disrupt serial recall performance.

show abstract

“…That is, it has been found that auditory standards tend to decrease response latencies compared to quiet conditions (Berti, 2013; Escera, Alho, Winkler, & Näätänen, 1998). Since there are, to our knowledge, no studies that have examined behavioral effects by omissions of standard stimuli and most studies using auditory-visual (e.g., Ljungberg et al, 2014) or tactile-visual oddball tasks (e.g., Ljungberg & Parmentier, 2012) always presented a deviant while omitting a standard, it is unclear whether it was the omission of a standard vibration that elicited deviance distraction or the unexpected deviant sound in Experiment 1. In fact, it is possible that the deviant sound and not the omission of the vibrating standard in Experiment 1 did have a distractive effect, but that the effect was suppressed when the deviant sound was presented in tandem with the standard vibration.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Functional similarity has been seen in distraction elicited by sudden and unexpected changes in to-be-ignored stimuli has been suggested to be functionally similar between different modalities (e.g., between the tactile and auditory modalities; Ljungberg & Parmentier, 2012). Evidence for this comes from behavioral and electrophysiological studies that have examined deviance distraction in uni-modal settings such as in the auditory-auditory (e.g., Berti, 2008; Berti & Schröger, 2003; Roeber, Berti, & Schröger, 2003) and visual-visual oddball tasks (e.g., Berti, Roeber, & Schröger, 2004; Boll & Berti, 2009) as well as used cross-modal tasks such as the auditory-visual (e.g., Ljungberg & Parmentier, 2012; Ljungberg, Parmentier, Jones, Marsja, & Neely, 2014; Munka & Berti, 2006; Parmentier et al, 2008) and tactile-visual (Ljungberg & Parmentier, 2012; Parmentier, Ljungberg, et al, 2011). However, deviance distraction does not always have to be correlated between modalities, even though the pattern of distraction is functionally similar.…”

Section: Examining Deviance Distraction Using the Oddball Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Deviance Distraction and the Impact of the Modality of the To-Be-Ignored Stimuli

Marsja

Neely

Ljungberg

2018

Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been suggested that deviance distraction is caused by unexpected sensory events in the to-be-ignored stimuli violating the cognitive system's predictions of incoming stimuli. The majority of research has used methods where the to-be-ignored expected (standards) and the unexpected (deviants) stimuli are presented within the same modality. Less is known about the behavioral impact of deviance distraction when the to-be-ignored stimuli are presented in different modalities (e.g., standard and deviants presented in different modalities). In three experiments using cross-modal oddball tasks with mixed-modality to-be-ignored stimuli, we examined the distractive role of unexpected auditory deviants presented in a continuous stream of expected standard vibrations. The results showed that deviance distraction seems to be dependent upon the to-be-ignored stimuli being presented within the same modality, and that the simplest omission of something expected; in this case, a standard vibration may be enough to capture attention and distract performance.

show abstract

‘What’s in a name?’ ‘No more than when it's mine own’. Evidence from auditory oddball distraction

Cited by 15 publications

References 41 publications

Reward-driven distraction: A meta-analysis.

Reward-driven distraction: A meta-analysis.

Metacognition in Auditory Distraction: How Expectations about Distractibility Influence the Irrelevant Sound Effect

Investigating Deviance Distraction and the Impact of the Modality of the To-Be-Ignored Stimuli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About