ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024
Auditory context-dependent distraction by unexpected visual stimuli.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research findings indicate that when a task-irrelevant stimulus feature deviates from an otherwise predictable pattern, participants performing a categorization task exhibit slower responses (deviance distraction). This deviance distraction effect reflects the violation of the sensory predictions generated by the cognitive system. In this study, we sought to examine for the first time whether these predictions can be incidentally modulated by the auditory environment. Participants categorized the duration (short vs long) of a colored shape (red square or blue circle) while instructed to disregard the stimulus' visual features and the sound played in the background (two distinct chords played by different instruments). While the two visual stimuli shapes were equiprobable across the task, one was highly likely (p=.882) and the other rare (p=.118) in one auditory context and vice versa in the other context. Our results showed that participants were significantly slower in the duration judgement task whenever the stimulus was unexpected within a given auditory context (context-dependent distraction), and that the reset of their sensory predictions was completed upon the trial following a change of context. We conclude that object features and environmental context are processed in relation to each other and that sensory predictions are produced in relation to the environmental context, evidencing the first demonstration of auditory context-dependent modulation of attention.
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.