ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2019
Distraction by deviant sounds during reading: An eye-movement study.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Unexpected sounds induce a rapid inhibition of eye-movement responses.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Auditory context-dependent distraction by unexpected visual stimuli.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Article
- Involuntary motor responses are elicited both by rare sounds and rare pitch changes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Distraction by unexpected sounds: comparing response repetition and response switching.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Weathering words: a virtual reality study of environmental influence on reading dynamics.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Distraction by violation of sensory predictions: Functional distinction between deviant sounds and unexpected silences.PloS one · 2022Article
- Different Markov chains modulate visual stimuli processing in a Go-Go experiment in 2D, 3D, and augmented reality.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Distraction by auditory novelty during reading: Evidence for disruption in saccade planning, but not saccade execution.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2021Article
- Parafoveal degradation during reading reduces preview costs only when it is not perceptually distinct.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2021Article
- Aging Increases Cross-Modal Distraction by Unexpected Sounds: Controlling for Response Speed.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Article
- Distraction by deviant sounds: disgusting and neutral words capture attention to the same extent.Psychological research · 2020Article
- Is deviance distraction immune to the prior sequential learning of stimuli and responses?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oddball studies have shown that sounds unexpectedly deviating from an otherwise repeated sequence capture attention away from the task at hand. While such distraction is typically regarded as potentially important in everyday life, previous work has so far not examined how deviant sounds affect performance on more complex daily tasks. In this study, we developed a new method to examine whether deviant sounds can disrupt reading performance by recording participants' eye movements. Participants read single sentences in silence and while listening to task-irrelevant sounds. In the latter condition, a 50-ms sound was played contingent on the fixation of five target words in the sentence. On most occasions, the same tone was presented (standard sound), whereas on rare and unexpected occasions it was replaced by white noise (deviant sound). The deviant sound resulted in significantly longer fixation durations on the target words relative to the standard sound. A time-course analysis showed that the deviant sound began to affect fixation durations around 180 ms after fixation onset. Furthermore, deviance distraction was not modulated by the lexical frequency of target words. In summary, fixation durations on the target words were longer immediately after the presentation of the deviant sound, but there was no evidence that it interfered with the lexical processing of these words. The present results are in line with the recent proposition that deviant sounds yield a temporary motor suppression and suggest that deviant sounds likely inhibit the programming of the next saccade.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.