ArticlePloS one2026
Distraction by deviant sounds: Response repetition vs. response change.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In oddball paradigms, rare deviant stimuli reliably produce behavioral distraction, disrupting performance in ongoing primary tasks. However, the specific mechanisms through which deviance affects response selection and execution remain unclear. Recent evidence suggests that deviant sounds may differentially affect response repetitions and response changes, but whether these effects reflect a single underlying process or functionally independent mechanisms has not been established. We investigated this question using a cross-modal auditory-visual oddball task in which participants (N = 115) identified visual target locations while ignoring standard (80%) or deviant (20%) tones. Critically, we manipulated response set size between participants (two-alternative forced-choice [2-AFC] vs. four-alternative forced-choice [4-AFC]) while holding deviant probability constant, testing whether deviance effects on repetitions and changes differ in their sensitivity to response uncertainty. Results revealed a clear dissociation: deviant sounds slowed response repetitions in both conditions, demonstrating response-specific inhibition that was insensitive to response uncertainty, but facilitated response changes more strongly in 2-AFC than 4-AFC, demonstrating context-sensitive facilitation that scales inversely with the number of response alternatives. These findings suggest that deviance effects on response repetition and response change may reflect functionally independent mechanisms with different computational properties, and that unexpected events may shape action control through coordinated inhibitory and facilitative processes.
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.