ArticleScientific reports2022
Effects of temporally regular versus irregular distractors on goal-directed cognition and behavior.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Inattentional Rhythm in Audition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Predicting the Irrelevant: Neural Effects of Distractor Predictability Depend on Load.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human environments comprise plenty of task-irrelevant sensory inputs, which are potentially distracting. Auditory distractors often possess an inherent temporal structure. However, it is largely unknown whether and how the temporal regularity of distractors interferes with goal-directed cognitive processes, such as working memory. Here, we tested a total sample of N = 90 participants across four working memory tasks with sequences of temporally regular versus irregular distractors. Temporal irregularity was operationalized by a final tone onset time that violated an otherwise regular tone sequence (Experiment 1), by a sequence of tones with irregular onset-to-onset delays (Experiment 2), and by sequences of speech items with irregular onset-to-onset delays (Experiments 3 and 4). Across all experiments, temporal regularity of distractors did not modulate participants' primary performance metric, that is, accuracy in recalling items from working memory. Instead, temporal regularity of distractors modulated secondary performance metrics: for regular versus irregular distractors, recall of the first item from memory was faster (Experiment 3) and the response bias was more conservative (Experiment 4). Taken together, the present results provide evidence that the temporal regularity of task-irrelevant input does not inevitably affect the precision of memory representations (reflected in the primary performance metric accuracy) but rather the response behavior (reflected in secondary performance metrics like response speed and bias). Our findings emphasize that a comprehensive understanding of auditory distraction requires that existing models of attention include often-neglected secondary performance metrics to understand how different features of auditory distraction reach awareness and impact cognition and behavior.
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.