A Nonspatial Sound Modulates Processing of Visual Distractors in a Flanker Task

Overview

Journal Atten Percept Psychophys

Publisher Springer

Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology

Date 2020 Oct 21

PMID 33083988

Citations 2

Authors

Cailey A Salagovic

Carly J Leonard

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Successful navigation of information-rich, multimodal environments involves processing both auditory and visual information. The extent to which information within each modality is processed varies because of many factors, but the influence of auditory stimuli on the processing of visual stimuli in these multimodal environments is not well understood. Previous research has shown that a preceding sound leads to decreased reaction times in visual tasks (Bertelson, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 19(3), 272-279, 1967). The current study examines whether a nonspatial, task-irrelevant sound additionally alters processing of visual distractors that flank a central target. We used a version of a flanker task in which participants responded to a central letter surrounded by two irrelevant flanker letters. When these flankers are associated with a conflicting response, a congruency effect occurs such that reaction time to the target is slowed (Eriksen & Eriksen, Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143-149, 1974). In two experiments using this task, results showed that a preceding tone caused general speeding of reaction time across flanker types, consistent with alerting. The tone also caused decreased variation in response time. Critically, the tone modulated the congruency effect, with a greater speeding for congruent flankers than for incongruent flankers. This suggests that the influence of flanker identity was more intense after tone presentation, consistent with a nonspatial sound increasing perceptual and/or response-association processing of flanking stimuli.

Citing Articles

The neutral condition in conflict tasks: On the violation of the midpoint assumption in reaction time trends.

Smith P, Ulrich R Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2023; 77(5):1023-1043.

PMID: 37674259 PMC: 11032635. DOI: 10.1177/17470218231201476.

The Effects of Bilateral and Ipsilateral Auditory Stimuli on the Subcomponents of Visual Attention.

Fu J, Guo X, Tang X, Wang A, Zhang M, Gao Y Iperception. 2022; 12(6):20416695211058222.

PMID: 34987747 PMC: 8721886. DOI: 10.1177/20416695211058222.

References

Cho Y, Lien M, Proctor R . Stroop dilution depends on the nature of the color carrier but not on its location. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006; 32(4):826-39. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.4.826. View

Gaspelin N, Ruthruff E, Jung K . Slippage theory and the flanker paradigm: an early-selection account of selective attention failures. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014; 40(3):1257-73. DOI: 10.1037/a0036179. View

Carmel D, Thorne J, Rees G, Lavie N . Perceptual load alters visual excitability. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011; 37(5):1350-60. DOI: 10.1037/a0024320. View

Fritz J, Elhilali M, David S, Shamma S . Auditory attention--focusing the searchlight on sound. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2007; 17(4):437-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.conb.2007.07.011. View

Hillyard S, Stormer V, Feng W, Martinez A, McDonald J . Cross-modal orienting of visual attention. Neuropsychologia. 2015; 83:170-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.06.003. View

Posner M, Petersen S . The attention system of the human brain. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1990; 13:25-42. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325. View

Frassinetti F, Bolognini N, Ladavas E . Enhancement of visual perception by crossmodal visuo-auditory interaction. Exp Brain Res. 2002; 147(3):332-43. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-002-1262-y. View

Weinbach N, Henik A . The relationship between alertness and executive control. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012; 38(6):1530-40. DOI: 10.1037/a0027875. View

Chen Y, Yeh S . Visual events modulated by sound in repetition blindness. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008; 15(2):404-8. DOI: 10.3758/pbr.15.2.404. View

10.

Kusnir F, Chica A, Mitsumasu M, Bartolomeo P . Phasic auditory alerting improves visual conscious perception. Conscious Cogn. 2011; 20(4):1201-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2011.01.012. View

11.

Moore C, Egeth H . Perception without attention: evidence of grouping under conditions of inattention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1997; 23(2):339-52. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.23.2.339. View

12.

Miller J . The flanker compatibility effect as a function of visual angle, attentional focus, visual transients, and perceptual load: a search for boundary conditions. Percept Psychophys. 1991; 49(3):270-88. DOI: 10.3758/bf03214311. View

13.

Bertelson P . The time course of preparation. Q J Exp Psychol. 1967; 19(3):272-9. DOI: 10.1080/14640746708400102. View

14.

Eriksen C, Schultz D . Information processing in visual search: a continuous flow conception and experimental results. Percept Psychophys. 1979; 25(4):249-63. DOI: 10.3758/bf03198804. View

15.

Wu C, Pontifex M, Raine L, Chaddock L, Voss M, Kramer A . Aerobic fitness and response variability in preadolescent children performing a cognitive control task. Neuropsychology. 2011; 25(3):333-41. PMC: 3086950. DOI: 10.1037/a0022167. View

16.

Zou H, Muller H, Shi Z . Non-spatial sounds regulate eye movements and enhance visual search. J Vis. 2012; 12(5). DOI: 10.1167/12.5.2. View

17.

Eriksen C, St James J . Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: a zoom lens model. Percept Psychophys. 1986; 40(4):225-40. DOI: 10.3758/bf03211502. View

18.

Freeman E, Sagi D, Driver J . Lateral interactions between targets and flankers in low-level vision depend on attention to the flankers. Nat Neurosci. 2001; 4(10):1032-6. DOI: 10.1038/nn728. View

19.

Brainard D . The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat Vis. 1997; 10(4):433-6. View

20.

Fischer R, Plessow F, Kiesel A . The effects of alerting signals in action control: activation of S-R associations or inhibition of executive control processes?. Psychol Res. 2011; 76(3):317-28. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-011-0350-7. View