Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31797177›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2020

Behavioral measures of attention and cognitive control during a new auditory working memory paradigm.

Jürgen Kayser, Lidia Y X Wong, Elizabeth Sacchi, Lindsey Casal-Roscum, Jorge E Alvarenga, Kenneth Hugdahl, Gerard E Bruder, John Jonides

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jürgen KayserDivision of Cognitive Neuroscience, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA. jurgen.kayser@nyspi.columbia.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5309-1573
Lidia Y X WongDivision of Translational Epidemiology, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA.
Elizabeth SacchiDivision of Translational Epidemiology, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA.
Lindsey Casal-RoscumDivision of Cognitive Neuroscience, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA.
Jorge E AlvarengaDivision of Cognitive Neuroscience, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA.
Kenneth HugdahlDepartment of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Gerard E BruderDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons, New York, NY, USA.
John JonidesDepartment of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

EEG/ERP Measures of Attention and Cognitive Control During New Auditory WM TasksR21MH106905 · NIMH · NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE DBA RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR MENTAL HYGIENE, INC · PI KAYSER, RALF JÜRGEN · 2016 to 2017
$446k
European Research Council (ERC) 693124Helse-Vest #911793NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH106905Research Council of Norway (RCN) 221550
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proactive control is the ability to manipulate and maintain goal-relevant information within working memory (WM), allowing individuals to selectively attend to important information while inhibiting irrelevant distractions. Deficits in proactive control may cause multiple cognitive impairments seen in schizophrenia. However, studies of cognitive control have largely relied on visual tasks, even though the functional deficits in schizophrenia are more frequent and severe in the auditory domain (i.e., hallucinations). Hence, we developed an auditory analogue of a visual ignore/suppress paradigm. Healthy adults (N = 40) listened to a series of four letters (600-ms stimulus onset asynchrony) presented alternately to each ear, followed by a 3.2-s maintenance interval and a probe. Participants were directed either to selectively ignore (I) the to-be-presented letters at one ear, to suppress (S) letters already presented to one ear, or to remember (R) all presented letters. The critical cue was provided either before (I) or after (S) the encoding series, or simultaneously with the probe (R). The probes were encoding items presented to either the attended/not suppressed ear ("valid") or the ignored/suppressed ear ("lure"), or were not presented ("control"). Replicating prior findings during visual ignore/suppress tasks, response sensitivity and latency revealed poorer performance for lure than for control trials, particularly during the suppress condition. Shorter suppress than remember latencies suggested a behavioral advantage when discarding encoded items from WM. The paradigm-related internal consistencies and 1-week test-retest reliabilities (n = 38) were good to excellent. Our findings validate these auditory WM tasks as a reliable manipulation of proactive control and set the stage for studies with schizophrenia patients who experience auditory hallucinations.

Indexed as

AttentionMemory, Short-TermAdultAuditory PerceptionCognitionFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultAttentionAuditory modalityProactive controlTest–retest reliabilityWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID31797177
PMCPMC7266708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.