Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36067181›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Distraction by violation of sensory predictions: Functional distinction between deviant sounds and unexpected silences.

Fabrice B R Parmentier, Alicia Leiva, Pilar Andrés, Murray T Maybery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. 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. Article
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

4 authors.

Fabrice B R ParmentierDepartment of Psychology & Research Institute of Health Sciences, Neuropsychology & Cognition Group, University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Balearic Islands, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7439-0097
Alicia LeivaDepartment of Psychology, Universitat de Vic-Universitat Central de Catalunya, Catalunya, Spain.
Pilar AndrésDepartment of Psychology & Research Institute of Health Sciences, Neuropsychology & Cognition Group, University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Balearic Islands, Spain.
Murray T MayberySchool of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been established that participants performing a continuous categorization task respond significantly slower following the presentation of unexpected, task-irrelevant, auditory stimuli, compared to a repetitive (standard) sound. Evidence indicates that such distraction emerges because of the violation of sensory predictions. This has typically been studied by measuring the impact of replacing the repeated sound by a different sound on rare and unpredictable trials. Here, we examine the impact of a different type of violation: the mere omission of the standard sound. Capitalizing upon the recent finding that deviant sounds exert distinct effects on response times as a function of whether participants produced or withheld a response on the previous trial, we present the results of an experiment seeking to disentangle two potential effects of sound omission: deviance distraction and the removal of an unspecific warning signal. The results indicate that deviant sound and the unexpected omission of the standard sound impact response times through, at least partially, distinct mechanisms. Deviant sounds affect performance by triggering the orienting of attention towards a new sensory input. Sound omissions, in contrast, appear to affect performance in part because responses no longer benefit from an unspecific warning signal to prepare for action.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionSoundAcoustic StimulationAttentionHumansReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID36067181
PMCPMC9447928

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.