ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2020
Is deviance distraction immune to the prior sequential learning of stimuli and responses?
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Auditory context-dependent distraction by unexpected visual stimuli.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Article
- Distraction by unexpected sounds: comparing response repetition and response switching.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Distraction by violation of sensory predictions: Functional distinction between deviant sounds and unexpected silences.PloS one · 2022Article
- Monetary incentives have only limited effects on auditory distraction: evidence for the automaticity of cross-modal attention capture.Psychological research · 2021Article
- Distraction by auditory novelty during reading: Evidence for disruption in saccade planning, but not saccade execution.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2021Article
- Aging Increases Cross-Modal Distraction by Unexpected Sounds: Controlling for Response Speed.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Past studies show that novel, task-irrelevant auditory stimuli, presented in the context of an otherwise repeated standard sound, capture participants' attention away from a focal task, resulting in behavioral distraction. While evidence has shown that making novel sounds predictable reduces or eliminates distraction, it remains unknown whether predictable target stimuli can also shield participants from novelty distraction. Using a serial reaction time task, we installed the learning of a sequence of target stimuli before testing the impact of novel sounds on performance for this sequence compared with a new one. In the learning phase, participants pressed response buttons corresponding to visual cues appearing in one of four spatial locations arranged horizontally. Unbeknownst to participants, the sequence of locations followed a pattern during several blocks before being replaced by a new pattern. The data provided solid evidence of sequence learning for the repeated sequence. In the auditory distraction phase, auditory distractors were presented immediately before each visual target. Novel sounds lengthened response times compared to the standard sound (novelty distraction), equally for learned and new sequences. We conclude that the anticipation of target stimuli and responses does not shield participants from novelty distraction and that the latter is an obligatory attentional effect.
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.