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

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274188

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.

Citation: Parmentier FBR, Leiva A, Andrés P, Maybery MT (2022) Distraction by violation of sensory predictions: Functional distinction between deviant sounds and unexpected silences. PLoS ONE 17(9): e0274188. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274188

Editor: David S. Vicario, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, UNITED STATES

Received: June 9, 2022; Accepted: August 23, 2022; Published: September 6, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Parmentier et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The dataset of this study is available on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/5H4ZA).

Funding: This study was supported by research grant PID2020-114117GB-I00 awarded to FP by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN), the Spanish State Agency for Research (AEI) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) “A Way of Making Europe”. (https://ciencia.sede.gob.es/) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The ability to focus on a task and filter out task-irrelevant stimuli is undeniably essential to efficient cognitive functioning [1–4]. Equally pivotal is change detection [5–9], which allows salient or unexpected stimuli to break through attention filters to capture our attention and, if need be, call for the modification of an ongoing action. However, in situations where attention grabbing stimuli turn out to be entirely irrelevant, the result is distraction. In the laboratory, such distraction can for example be observed when unexpected task-irrelevant auditory stimuli deviating from an otherwise repetitive or structured sequence impact performance in an ongoing unrelated task [7,10–17].

In the cross-modal oddball task, participants typically categorize visual digits while instructed to ignore the sound preceding each digit. One sound is used on the majority of trials (standard sound), while a different sound is used on rare and unpredictable trials (deviant sound). Such deviation triggers a well-established series of electrophysiological responses (mismatch negativity or MMN, a positive deflection or P3a, and the reorientation negativity or RON), thought to reflect, respectively, the violation of predictions, the involuntary orientation of attention toward the deviant stimulus, and the re-orientation toward the primary task [11,15,18–23]. Importantly, deviant sounds also yield a lengthening of response times in the primary task [7,12,13]. Since its initial report [7], behavioral deviance distraction has been reported in numerous studies using auditory-visual oddball tasks [12,20,24–26], but also tactile-visual [27,28], purely visual [29–32], or purely auditory [7,11,33–41] tasks.

Behavioral and electrophysiological studies have shown that deviance distraction originates from the violation of sensory predictions rather than from the deviant sound’s low probability per se [42–46], is associated with a transient inhibition of actions [47–50], and is unaffected by response predictability [51]. Violations of predictions can potentially also take another form, however: the omission of the predicted auditory stimulus. That is, the mere omission of a predicted sound might potentially produce functionally similar effects to that of the presentation of a deviant sound.

There has been no attempt to examine the impact of auditory stimulus omission on behavioral performance in oddball tasks, though one study [52] examined the effect of stimulus omission in the tactile modality. In that study, an unexpected sound presented in lieu of a standard vibration produced longer response times, an effect due to the omission of the standard vibration rather than to the presentation of the sound. The authors concluded that the mere omission of the standard tactile stimulus constitutes a violation of sensory predictions in the same way as a deviant stimulus.

In the electrophysiological literature, some studies have reported electrophysiological responses to omissions resembling those triggered by deviant sounds [e.g., 53–58]. However, the MMN response to tone omission appears limited to rapidly presented tones [59] and builds up slower than the MMN elicited by violations of stimulus repetitions [60]. Hence, omissions and deviant sounds produce a MMN response through distinct mechanisms [61].

Studying the impact of sound omission on behavioral performance in the cross-modal oddball task is not straightforward because, while standard sounds elicit sensory predictions, sounds in this paradigm also fulfil the function of unspecific warning signals [62–66] that facilitate action [67,68]. This is illustrated, for example, by the finding that responses are slower in a silent block of trials than following the standard sound [10,12]. This presents a methodological problem: omitting the standard sound constitutes a violation of sensory predictions but it also results in the removal of a warning signal, both factors expected to lengthen response times. Here, we propose a functional solution to this methodological conundrum by capitalizing on recent work showing that deviant sounds elicit distinct (in fact opposite) effects on response times depending on whether participants performed the primary task or inhibited actions on the previous trial. As described next, we will argue that, using this distinction, it is possible to disentangle the two effects.

Revisiting the claim that deviant sounds yield no behavioral distraction in cross-modal oddball tasks in which sounds are deprived of their warning value [69–73], Parmentier [67] showed that this finding was a fata morgana resulting from the indiscriminate analysis of performance irrespective of whether the previous trial required a response (Go trial) or not (NoGo trial). Taking into account this distinction, the data reveal in fact two opposite effects: deviant sounds lengthen response times following Go trials but speed responses up following NoGo trials. Parmentier [67] argued that deviant sounds capture attention as they violate sensory predictions, and that this, in turn, modulates action plans in the following way: Immediately after a Go trial, deviant trials bring a change of context that renders more difficult the repetition of the currently active action plan. Following a NoGo trial, the change of context brought by the deviant sound helps disengaging from the state of action inhibition, thereby facilitating the reactivation of the relevant task set and the production of responses. Hence, following a standard Go trial, the cognitive system is geared toward action and a deviant sound will slow responses because it triggers a temporary inhibition of action plans and an involuntary attention capture. In contrast, following a standard NoGo trial, a deviant sound disengages the cognitive system from the state of motor inhibition it was geared toward, thereby speeding up responses.

Though not immediately apparent, the finding described above holds a key to the question at stake in the present study because the contrasting effects of deviant sounds following Go and NoGo trials are functionally distinct from the sounds’ warning value. If the cognitive system processes the silence resulting from the omission of the standard sound in the same way as it processes a deviant sound, that is, as a discrete departure from sensory predictions, then it should act, and affect response times, in the same way as a deviant sound. More specifically, compared to standard sounds, silence and deviant sounds should yield slower response times following Go trials, and faster response times following NoGo trials. In contrast, if silence simply amounts to the absence of an unspecific warning signal, then it should slow response times across the board (no unspecific preparation for action), irrespective of whether the previous trial was Go or NoGo. These two hypotheses were contrasted for the first time in an experiment in which participants performed a cross-modal oddball task in which two deviations from the standard sound were introduced: deviant sounds and silence.

Method

Participants

Thirty-two (23 women) undergraduates from the University of the Balearic Islands took part in this experiment in exchange for a small honorarium. Participants were aged 18 to 23 (M = 19.03, SD = 1.24). All participants reported correct or corrected-to-normal vision and normal hearing.

An initial power analysis was carried out based on an estimate of the size of the effect of critical importance in our study: the difference in distraction (deviant/silence vs standard) between PostGo and PostNoGo trials. We revisited four existing data sets comparing deviant and standard trials in PostGo and PostNoGo trials and calculated this effect size: d_az = 1.009 [73], d_az = 1.531 [69], d_az = 1.920 [70], and d_az = 1.337 [67]. Based on an average d_az of 1.450, Type I error probability of .05, and a power of .95, the minimum sample size was 9 [calculated using GPower, 74]. Based on the smallest of the above effect sizes, it was 13. We used this estimate as a minimum sample size requirement, advertised the experiment and allowed all participants interested to take part.

Stimuli, design, and procedure

Participants were presented with 1800 test trials each (5 blocks of 360). On half of the trials (GO trials) a visual digit (1–6) was presented and participants categorized it as odd or even using two arbitrary allocated keys (X & Z, counterbalanced across participants), which they pressed using the index and middle fingers of their dominant hand. On the other half of the trials (NoGo trials), the fixation cross appeared instead of a digit and participants withheld responding. The fixation cross was visible at the center of the screen throughout the task except when replaced by the presentation of the to-be-attended visual digit.

Each trial began with the presentation of a task-irrelevant sound (150 ms) or a similar period of silence. This event was followed, after one of three equi-probable temporal intervals (0, 100, 200 ms) by the presentation of a visual digit or its substitution by the fixation cross (with equal probabilities). The visual digit or the fixation cross appeared at the center of a square box (sustaining a viewing angle of approximately 2.6°) and remained visible for 150 ms. An interval of 950 ms followed, thereby affording participants a total response window of 1100 ms. At the end of this interval, the next trial began automatically.

Three sound conditions were compared: standard (80% of trials), deviant (10%) and silent (10%) conditions. The three sound files corresponding to these conditions were, respectively: a 600 Hz sinewave tone, a burst of white noise, and silence. These sound files had a duration of 150 ms. The standard and deviant sounds were normalized and their envelope edited to include 10ms rise and fall ramps. They were delivered binaurally through headphones at an intensity of approximately 75 db SPL.

The digits (1–6) were presented in a different pseudo-random order for each participant, conforming to the following rules: each digit was used equally often across all conditions (3 sounds x 3 auditory-visual stimuli intervals x presence/omission of the visual target) across each successive group of 180 trials, and deviant and silent trials were followed by at least one standard trial.

Participants were instructed to ignore the task-irrelevant sounds and to concentrate on the digit categorization task, responding to these as quickly as possible while trying to be as accurate as possible. In each block, test trials were prefixed by the presentation of 12 standard practice trials that served as practice and warmup trials and that were excluded from the data analysis. Participants were allowed to take a short break between blocks if they wished to. The experimental session took approximately an hour.

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of American Psychological Association with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Bioethical Committee of the University of the Balearic Islands.

Results

The mean proportion of correct responses and the mean response times (RTs) for correct responses were analyzed as a function of (1) the type of trial (whether a given trial was preceded by a Go or a NoGo trial), and (2) the type of sound (standard, deviant, silence). ANOVAs were carried out for each dependent variable, followed by theoretically-driven t-tests (Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were used when the sphericity assumption was violated). Effect sizes are reported as partial eta-square values for F tests, and as Cohen’s d_az for within-participant comparisons [75]. In addition to frequentist statistics, we also report the Bayes Factor (BF₁₀) to assess the credibility of the experimental hypothesis relative to that of the null hypothesis given the data. Values below 1/3 are considered as substantial to strong support for the null effect, while values above 3 are regarded as substantial to strong supporting the presence of an effect [76,77]. Since past work has shown that deviant sounds yield some residual distraction in the next standard trial [11,41,78–85], and in line with past work controlling for this contamination effect [86–91], post-deviant standard trials were excluded from the analysis.

In line with previous work using the digit categorization task, overall performance was good (M = .89, SD = .05). The proportion of correct responses (see Table 1) was analyzed using a 2 (PostGo vs PostNoGo) x 3 (standard, deviant, silence) ANOVA for repeated measures. The main effects of trial type and sound condition were not significant; F(1,31) = 0.090, MSE = 0.006, p = .766, = 0.003, BF₁₀ = 0.165, and F(2,62) = 0.345, MSE = 0.005, p = .710, = .011, BF₁₀ = 0.070, respectively. These two factors interacted significantly, F(2,62) = 3.553, MSE = 0.006, p = .035, = .103, BF₁₀ = 0.522. Comparisons between the standard condition and each of the other two sound conditions revealed no significant difference in PostGo trials: t(31) = 0.857, p = .398, d_az = 0.152 (95% CI: -0.198 to 0.499), BF₁₀ = 0.265, for the deviant condition, and t(31) = -0.551, p = .585, d_az = -0.097 (95% CI: -0.444 to 0.251), BF₁₀ = 0.217 for the silence condition. In the PostNoGo condition, no difference was found between the standard and silence conditions, t(31) = 0.981, p = .334, d_az = 0.173 (95% CI: -0.177 to 0.521), BF₁₀ = 0.294, but the deviant condition yielded more correct responses than the standard condition, t(31) = -2.158, p = .039, d_az = -0.381 (95% CI: -.738 to -0.019), BF₁₀ = 1.430. The difference between the deviant and silence conditions was modulated by the type of trial (PostGo vs PostNoGo): F(2,62) = 5.232, MSE = 0.008, p = .029, = .144, BF₁₀ = 0.375. Overall, this pattern of data suggests a functional distinction between the effects of the deviant and silence conditions.

Download:

Table 1. Mean proportion of correct responses as a function of trial (postGo, PostNoGo) and sound (standard, deviant, silence) conditions.

Values within parentheses represent one standard error of the mean.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274188.t001

Mean response times for correct responses (see Fig 1, Panel A) were examined using a 2 (PostGo vs PostNoGo) x 3 (standard, deviant, silence) ANOVA for repeated measures. Participants were slower in the PostNoGo than in the PostGo condition, F(1,31) = 26.980, MSE = 756.368, p < .001, = .465, BF₁₀ = 2717.574. The main effect of sound condition did not reach statistical significance, F(1.679,52.046) = 2.982, MSE = 1016.781, p = .068, = .088, BF₁₀ = 0.462. However, a significant interaction was observed between these two factors, F(1.474,45.679) = 8.828, MSE = 1105.610, p = .002, = .222, BF₁₀ = 112.327.

Download:

Fig 1. Response time performance.

Panel A: Mean response times for correct responses as a function of the trial condition (PostGo, PostNoGo) and sound condition (Standard, Deviance, Silence). Panel B: Illustration of the differential effect of deviant sounds and unexpected silences in the PostGo and PostNoGo trials. The measure illustrated is the difference in response time relative to the standard condition. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274188.g001

To analyze this interaction, we conducted two distinct ANOVAs. First, we carried out a 2 (trial type: PostGo vs PostNoGo) x 2 (sound condition: Standard vs Deviant) ANOVA aimed to test a replication of Parmentier’s (2016) findings (namely that, relative to the standard condition, deviant sounds slow responses in the PostGo condition while they shorten them in the PostNoGo condition). The main effect of trial type was significant: F(1,31) = 10.806, MSE = 728.160, p < .001, = .258, BF₁₀ = 16.145. The main effect of the sound condition was not: F(1,31) = 0.101, MSE = 587.081,p = .753, = .003, BF₁₀ = 0.190. However, the interaction between these factors was significant: F(1,31) = 19.120, MSE = 629.743, p < .001, = .381, BF₁₀ = 407. Further examination confirmed that, in the PostGo condition, deviant sounds yield distraction relative to the standard condition: t(31) = 2.743, p = .010, d_az = 0.485 (95% CI: 0.115 to 0.848), BF₁₀ = 4.402. In contrast, the effect was reversed in the PostNoGo condition: t(31) = -3.623, p < .001, d_az = -0.640 (95% CI: -1.017 to -0.255), BF₁₀ = 31.750. Second, we carried out a (trial type: PostGo vs PostNoGo) x 2 (sound condition: Standard vs Silence) ANOVA to assess the effect of unexpected silences relative to the standard condition. The main effect of trial type was significant: F(1,31) = 44.663, MSE = 770.194, p < .001, = .590, BF₁₀ = 1.893x10⁷. The main of sound condition was significant too: F(1,31) = 4.359, MSE = 760.372, p = .045, = .123, BF₁₀ = 0.850, revealing overall longer response times in response to unexpected silences relative to the standard condition. Importantly, the interaction between these factors was not significant: F(1,31) = 0.325, MSE = 516.874, p = .573, = .010, BF₁₀ = 0.290.

Discussion

This study addressed a simple question: Do deviant sounds and unexpected silences yield behavioral distraction through the same mechanisms? In a cross-modal oddball task in which deviations from the standard sound consisted of a different tone or the omission of the standard sound, performance was compared as a function of whether the previous trial involved a target stimulus and a response (Post-Go and Post-NoGo trials, respectively). In line with past findings [67], deviant sounds yielded faster responses than the standard sound in Post-Go trials, but the opposite pattern was observed in Post-NoGo trials. This is thought to reflect the fact that deviant sounds help disengage from the current action plan: Following action, deviant sounds capture attention and cause distraction whereas, following a NoGo trial, deviant sounds help counteract action inhibition, thereby speeding up the response. In contrast, the omission of the standard sound lengthened response times in both Post-Go and Post-NoGo trials. Hence, the behavioral aftermaths of deviant sound and unexpected silence appear, at least in part, functionally distinct. The silence resulting from the omission of the standard sound appears to yield the effect expected of the removal of a warning signal rather than, or more than, that of a deviant sound.

The speeding of responses following an unspecific warning has long been documented [63,65]. It has been previously argued that the sounds’ warning property contributes to shorten response times independently from post-NoGo slowing, the deviant sound’s disruption of action plans, and individual differences in response speed [67]. The present results are in line with this proposition and indicate that the omission of the standard sound amounts, at least in good part, to the removal of a warning signal. In other words, the absence of the standard sound is functionally distinct from the presentation of a stimulus violating sensory predictions. This suggests that behavioral deviance distraction may be strongest when sensory predictions are compared to a positive stimulus (actual sensory input) and not, or much less so, to a negative one (absence of sensory stimulation).

Interestingly, some researchers have suggested that MMN is not a unitary response either, but the upshot of different mechanisms for deviant sounds and omissions [61,92]. According to this view, tone repetition leads to stimulus-specific adaptation, resulting in relatively small, evoked responses. In contrast, deviant sounds activate non-adapted sensory cells which, relative to the cells responding to the standard sounds, produce larger evoked responses. The MMN response triggered by the omission of the standard sound may, in contrast, correspond to an oscillatory N1, a reverberation due to the entrainment of the stimulation of sensory cells with the prior repetition of the standard sound. Empirically, the two types of MMN exhibit different temporal dynamics [60] and characteristics with respect to the rate of presentation of the sounds [59]. Finally, in studies in which the sensory consequences of the participants’ actions (pressing a button) are manipulated to elicit a sound on most trials, the omission of the predicted sound yields a N1 response greater than that of the predicted sound [93] and smaller than that of an unexpected sound [57].

Hence, taken together, our results and the findings from MMN studies suggest that the functional similarities exhibited by the effects of deviant sound and sound omission may result from at least partially different mechanisms. This does not imply that the same mechanisms underpin behavioral and electrophysiological responses to sound omissions, however. While N1 may play a role in the generation of a MMN-like response to sound omissions [92] and N1 appears to relate to alertness [94,95], the link is too tenuous to suggest a link between N1 and the warning value of sounds in the cross-oddball task. Parallels between behavioral and electrophysiological effects are generally perilous and past findings suggest that they are not directly linked. Indeed, the first can vary in the absence of fluctuation of the latter [26,71], and vice versa [96–99].

The present results suggest that in conditions functionally similar to those of the classic version of the cross-modal oddball task (Go trials following Go trials), the effects yielded by deviant sounds and the omission of the standard sound are undistinguishable. This presents a straightforward methodological implication: studies investigating the impact of stimulus omission as a potential source of deviance should make the sound uninformative (probability of a target following a sound set to chance), and data should be analyzed as a function of trial type (post-Go vs post-NoGo). Without this distinction, equating longer responses to omitted standard stimuli to the effect of a deviant stimulus [52] is questionable.

Finally, we should indicate that our results do not exclude the possibility that omissions may affect response times through both the removal of the standard sound’s unspecific warning signal (to a large extent) and as a deviant event per se (to a smaller extent). Our results certainly provide evidence of the first effect but does not rule out the possibility of the second, which may have been masked and made difficult to detect by the first. The first effect may for example be measured in using a design in which standard and silent trials are equiprobable (50% each) and should be smaller than in a design like ours (where standard trials represent 80% of the trials and deviant and silent trials 10% each). It may also be possible to gauge the two effects by manipulating the extent to which silent trials are predictable (thereby enabling or disabling the surprise associated with these trials). Overall, the results from the present study suggest that, in the cross-modal oddball task, the unexpected omission of the standard sound and the deviant sound lengthen response times in the primary visual task through different mechanisms, or possibly through different balances between distinct effects such the use of the sound’s warning value to prepare for action, the time penalty reflecting the involuntary orienting of attention to (and reorientation from) the deviant sound, and effect of deviant sounds on the selection of task-set or sensory-motoric mappings). At any rate, our results show that deviant sounds and the omission of sound do not yield the same impact on behavioral performance.

Acknowledgments

Fabrice Parmentier is an Adjunct Senior Lecturer at the University of Western Australia.

References

1. Broadbent DE (Donald E. Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press; 1958.
2. Driver J. A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. British Journal of Psychology. 2001;92:53–78.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Cherry EC. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with 2 ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1953;25:975–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Treisman AM. Selective attention in man. British Medical Bulletin. Oxford University Press (OUP); 1964;20:12–6.
5. Risto . Attention and brain function. L. Erlbaum; 1992.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Sokolov EN. Higher Nervous Functions: The Orienting Reflex. Annual Review of Physiology. Annual Reviews 4139 El Camino Way, P.O. Box 10139, Palo Alto, CA 94303–0139, USA; 1963;25:545–80.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Schröger E. A neural mechanism for involuntary attention shifts to changes in auditory stimulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1996;8:527–39. pmid:23961983
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Theeuwes J. Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity. Perception & Psychophysics. 1991;50:184–93. pmid:1945740
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Yantis S, Jonides J. Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1984;10:601–21. pmid:6238122
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Andrés P, Parmentier FBR, Escera C. The effect of age on involuntary capture of attention by irrelevant sounds: A test of the frontal hypothesis of aging. Neuropsychologia. 2006;44:2564–8. pmid:16797613
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Berti S. Cognitive control after distraction: Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) dissociate between different processes of attentional allocation. Psychophysiology. 2008;45:608–20. pmid:18346043
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Escera C, Alho K, Winkler I, Näätänen R. Neural mechanisms of involuntary attention to acoustic novelty and change. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1998;10:590–604. pmid:9802992
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Parmentier FBR. The cognitive determinants of behavioral distraction by deviant auditory stimuli: A review. Psychological Research [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2017 Mar 16];78:321–38. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00426-013-0534-4. pmid:24363092
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Parmentier FBR, Elford G, Escera C, Andrés P, Miguel IS. The cognitive locus of distraction by acoustic novelty in the cross-modal oddball task. Cognition. Elsevier; 2008;106:408–32.
15. Schröger E. On the detection of auditory deviations: A pre-attentive activation model. Psychophysiology. 1997;34:245–57. pmid:9175439
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Schröger E. The Mismatch Negativity as a Tool to Study Auditory Processing. Acta Acustica United with Acustica. 2005;91:490–501.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Schröger E. Mismatch negativity—A microphone into auditory memory. Journal of Psychophysiology. 2007;21:138–46.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Berti S, Roeber U, Schröger E. Bottom-up influences on working memory: Behavioral and electrophysiological distraction varies with distractor strength. Experimental Psychology. 2004;51:249–57. pmid:15620226
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Berti S, Schröger E. A comparison of auditory and visual distraction effects: Behavioral and event-related indices. Cognitive Brain Research. 2001;10:265–73. pmid:11167050
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Munka L, Berti S. Examining task-dependencies of different attentional processes as reflected in the P3a and reorienting negativity components of the human event-related brain potential. Neuroscience Letters. 2006;396:177–81. pmid:16356637
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Schröger E, Wolff C. Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of task-irrelevant sound change: a new distraction paradigm. Cognitive Brain Research. 1998;7:71–87. pmid:9714745
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Horváth J, Winkler I, Bendixen A. Do N1/MMN, P3a, and RON form a strongly coupled chain reflecting the three stages of auditory distraction? Biological Psychology. 2008;79:139–47. pmid:18468765
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Weise A, Ritter W, Schröger E. The representation of unattended, segmented sounds: A mismatch negativity (MMN) study. International Journal of Psychophysiology. Elsevier B.V.; 2011;81:121–6.
24. Leiva A, Parmentier FBR, Andrés P. Distraction by deviance Comparing the effects of auditory and visual deviant stimuli on auditory and visual target processing. Experimental Psychology. 2015;62:54–65. pmid:25270560
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Parmentier FBR, Maybery MT, Elsley J. The involuntary capture of attention by novel feature pairings: a study of voice-location integration in auditory sensory memory. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010;72:279–84. pmid:20139445
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. SanMiguel I, Morgan HM, Klein C, Linden D, Escera C. On the functional significance of Novelty-P3: Facilitation by unexpected novel sounds. Biological Psychology. 2010;83:143–52. pmid:19963034
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Parmentier FBR, Ljungberg JK, Elsley JVJ V, Lindkvist M. A behavioral study of distraction by vibrotactile novelty. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011;37:1134–9. pmid:21517219
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Ljungberg JK, Parmentier FBR. Cross-modal distraction by deviance: Functional similarities between the auditory and tactile modalities. Experimental Psychology. 2012;59:355–63. pmid:22750743
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Berti S, Schröger E. Distraction effects in vision: behavioral and event-related potential indices. NeuroReport. 2004;15:665–9. pmid:15094472
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Boll S, Berti S. Distraction of task-relevant information processing by irrelevant changes in auditory, visual, and bimodal stimulus features: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Psychophysiology. 2009;46:645–54. pmid:19386054
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Grimm S, Bendixen A, Deouell LY, Schröger E. Distraction in a visual multi-deviant paradigm: Behavioral and event-related potential effects. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2009;72:260–6. pmid:19452601
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Leiva A, Andrés P, Parmentier FBR. When aging does not increase distraction: Evidence from pure auditory and visual oddball tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. American Psychological Association Inc.; 2015;41:1612–22.
33. Volosin M, Horváth J. Task difficulty modulates voluntary attention allocation, but not distraction in an auditory distraction paradigm. Brain Research. Elsevier B.V.; 2020;1727:146565.
34. Muller-Gass A, Campbell K. Sleep deprivation moderates neural processes associated with passive auditory capture. Brain and Cognition. Elsevier; 2019;132:89–97.
35. Bendixen A, Grimm S, Deouell LY, Wetzel N, Maedebach A, Schröger E. The time-course of auditory and visual distraction effects in a new crossmodal paradigm. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48:2130–9. pmid:20385149
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Bendixen A, Roeber U, Schröger E. Regularity extraction and application in dynamic auditory stimulus sequences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2007;19:1664–77. pmid:18271740
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Bendixen A, Schröger E. Memory trace formation for abstract auditory features and its consequences in different attentional contexts. Biological Psychology. 2008;78:231–41. pmid:18439740
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Berti S, Schröger E. Working memory controls involuntary attention switching: evidence from an auditory distraction paradigm. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2003;17:1119–22. pmid:12653989
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Horváth J, Winkler I. Distraction in a continuous-stimulation detection task. Biological Psychology. 2010;83:229–38. pmid:20064580
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Reiche M, Hartwigsen G, Widmann A, Saur D, Schröger E, Bendixen A. Involuntary attentional capture by speech and non-speech deviations: A combined behavioral-event-related potential study. Brain Research. 2013;1490:153–60. pmid:23123705
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Roeber U, Widmann A, Schröger E. Auditory distraction by duration and location deviants: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Cognitive Brain Research. 2003;17:347–57. pmid:12880905
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Schröger E, Marzecová A, SanMiguel I. Attention and prediction in human audition: A lesson from cognitive psychophysiology. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2015;41:641–64. pmid:25728182
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Schröger E, Kotz SA, SanMiguel I. Bridging prediction and attention in current research on perception and action. Brain Research. 2015;1626:1–13. pmid:26348988
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Bendixen A, Prinz W, Horváth J, Trujillo-Barreto NJ, Schröger E. Rapid extraction of auditory feature contingencies. Neuroimage. 2008;41:1111–9. pmid:18467129
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Bubic A, von Cramon DY, Jacobsen T, Schröger E, Schubotz RI. Violation of Expectation: Neural Correlates Reflect Bases of Prediction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2009;21:155–68. pmid:18476761
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Parmentier FBR, Elsley J v., Andrés P, Barceló F. Why are auditory novels distracting? Contrasting the roles of novelty, violation of expectation and stimulus change. Cognition. 2011;119:374–80. pmid:21382615
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Finzi RD, Postle BR, Brady TF, Aron AR. Unexpected events disrupt visuomotor working memory and increase guessing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review; 2018;25:651–7.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Dutra IC, Waller DA, Wessel JR. Perceptual surprise improves action stopping by nonselectively suppressing motor activity via a neural mechanism for motor inhibition. Journal of Neuroscience. 2018;38:1482–92. pmid:29305533
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Wessel JR. Perceptual surprise aides inhibitory motor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2017;43:1585–93. pmid:28557496
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Vasilev MR, Parmentier FBR, Angele B, Kirkby JA. Distraction by deviant sounds during reading: An eye-movement study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2019;72:1863–75.
51. Parmentier FBR, Gallego L. Is deviance distraction immune to the prior sequential learning of stimuli and responses ? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2020.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Marsja E, Neely G, Ljungberg JK. Investigating deviance distraction and the impact of the modality of the to-be-ignored stimuli. Experimental Psychology. 2018;65:61–70. pmid:29631521
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Nordby H, Hammerborg D, Roth WT, Hugdahl K. ERPs for infrequent omissions and inclusions of stimulus elements. Psychophysiology. 1994;31:544–52. pmid:7846215
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Sutton S, Tueting P, Zubin J, John ER. Information delivery and the sensory evoked potential. Science (1979). 1967;155:1436–9. pmid:6018511
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
55. Bendixen A, Scharinger M, Strauß A, Obleser J. Prediction in the service of comprehension: Modulated early brain responses to omitted speech segments. Cortex. Masson SpA; 2014;53:9–26. pmid:24561233
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Tervaniemi M, Saarinen J, Paavilainen P, Danilova N, Näätänen R. Temporal integration of auditory information in sensory memory as reflected by the mismatch negativity. Biological Psychology. 1994;38:157–67. pmid:7873700
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. SanMiguel I, Widmann A, Bendixen A, Trujillo-Barreto N, Schröger E. Hearing silences: Human auditory processing relies on preactivation of sound-specific brain activity patterns. Journal of Neuroscience. 2013;33:8633–9. pmid:23678108
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Dercksen TT, Widmann A, Schröger E, Wetzel N. Omission related brain responses reflect specific and unspecific action-effect couplings. Neuroimage. Elsevier BV; 2020;215:116840.
59. Yabe H, Tervaniemi M, Reinikainen K, Näätänen R. Temporal window of integration revealed by MMN to sound omission. NeuroReport. 1997;8:1971–4. pmid:9223087
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Horváth J, Müller D, Weise A, Schröger E. Omission mismatch negativity builds up late. NeuroReport. 2010;21:537–41. pmid:20386487
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
61. Wacongne C, Changeux J-P, Dehaene S. A neuronal model of predictive coding accounting for the mismatch negativity. Journal of Neuroscience. 2012;32:3665–78. pmid:22423089
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
62. Hackley SA. The speeding of voluntary reaction by a warning signal. Psychophysiology. 2009;46:225–33. pmid:18811626
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
63. Niemi P, Näätänen R. Foreperiod and simple reaction-time. Psychological Bulletin. 1981;89:133–62.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
64. Davis R, Green FA. Intersensory differences in the effect of warning signals on reaction time. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1969;30:155–67.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
65. Bertelson P. Time course of preparation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1967;19:272–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
66. Wundt W. Neunzehntes Kapitel. Verlauf und Assoziation der Vorstellungen. Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie. Leipzig: Verlag Von WilhelmEngelmann; 1874. p. 726–819.
67. Parmentier FBR. Deviant sounds yield distraction irrespective of the sounds’ informational value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. American Psychological Association Inc.; 2016;42:837–46.
68. Parmentier FBR, Vasilev MR, Andrés P. Surprise as an explanation to auditory novelty distraction and post-error slowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. in press. 2018;148:192–200. pmid:30346199
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
69. Ljungberg JK, Parmentier FBR, Leiva A, Vega N. The informational constraints of behavioral distraction by unexpected sounds: The role of event information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition. 2012;38:1461–8. pmid:22563629
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
70. Li B, Parmentier FBR, Zhang M. Behavioral distraction by auditory deviance is mediated by the sound’s informational value: Evidence from an auditory discrimination task. Experimental Psychology. 2013;60:260–8.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
71. Wetzel N, Schröger E, Widmann A. The dissociation between the P3a event-related potential and behavioral distraction. Psychophysiology. 2013;50:920–30. pmid:23763292
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
72. Wetzel N, Widmann A, Schröger E. Distraction and facilitation-two faces of the same coin? Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance. 2012;38:664–74. pmid:22022895
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
73. Parmentier FBR, Elsley J V., Ljungberg JK. Behavioral distraction by auditory novelty is not only about novelty: The role of the distracter’s informational value. Cognition. 2010;115:504–11. pmid:20338553
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
74. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007;39:175–91. pmid:17695343
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
75. Calculating Lakens D. and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology. 2013;4:1–12.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
76. Jeffreys H. Theory of probability. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1961.
77. Jarosz AF, Wiley J. What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting bayes factors. Journal of Problem Solving. 2014;7:2–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
78. Ahveninen J, Jaaskelainen IP, Pekkonen E, Hallberg A, Hietanen M, Näätänen R, et al. Increased distractibility by task-irrelevant sound changes in abstinent alcoholics. Alcoholism-Clinical and Experimental Research. 2000;24:1850–4. pmid:11141044
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
79. Kähkönen S, Ahveninen J, Pekkonen E, Kaakkola S, Huttunen J, Ilmoniemi RJ, et al. Dopamine modulates involuntary attention shifting and reorienting: An electromagnetic study. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2002;113:1894–902. pmid:12464326
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
80. Parmentier FBR, Andrés P. The involuntary capture of attention by sound novelty and postnovelty distraction in young and older adults. Experimental Psychology. 2010;57:68–76. pmid:20178965
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
81. Roeber U, Berti S, Schröger E. Auditory distraction with different presentation rates: an event-related potential and behavioral study. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2003;114:341–9. pmid:12559243
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
82. Nousak JMK, Deacon D, Ritter W, Vaughan HG Jr. Storage of information in transient auditory memory. Cognitive Brain Research. 1996;4:305–17.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
83. Roeber U, Berti S, Widmann A, Schröger E. Response repetition vs. response change modulates behavioral and electrophysiological effects of distraction. Cognitive Brain Research. 2005;22:451–6. pmid:15722214
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
84. Pacheco-Unguetti AP, Parmentier FBR. Happiness increases distraction by auditory deviant stimuli. Br J Psychol. 2016;107:419–33. pmid:26302716
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
85. Pacheco-Unguetti AP, Parmentier FBR. Sadness increases distraction by auditory deviant stimuli. Emotion. 2014;14:203–13. pmid:24098923
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
86. Alho K, Escera C, Díaz R, Yago E, Serra JM, Diaz R, et al. Effects of involuntary auditory attention on visual task performance and brain activity. NeuroReport. 1997;8:3233–7. pmid:9351649
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
87. Escera C, Yago E, Corral M-JJ, Corbera S, Nuñez MI. Attention capture by auditory significant stimuli: semantic analysis follows attention switching. European Journal of …. 2003;18:2408–12. pmid:14622204
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
88. Gumenyuk V, Korzyukov O, Alho K, Escera C, Naatanen R. Effects of auditory distraction on electrophysiological brain activity and performance in children aged 8–13 years. Psychophysiology [Internet]. 2004;41:30–6. Available from: %3CGo pmid:14692998
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
89. SanMiguel I, Corral M-JM-J, Escera C. When loading working memory reduces distraction: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence from an auditory-visual distraction paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008;20:1131–45. pmid:18284343
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
90. van Mourik R, Oosterlaan J, Heslenfeld DJ, Konig CE, Sergeant JA. When distraction is not distracting: A behavioral and ERP study on distraction in ADHD. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2007;118:1855–65. pmid:17576093
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
91. Ljungberg JK, Parmentier FBR, Jones DM, Marsja E, Neely G. “What’s in a name?” “No more than when it’s mine own”. Evidence from auditory oddball distraction. Acta Psychologica. Elsevier; 2014;150:161–6.
92. May PJCC, Tiitinen H. Mismatch negativity (MMN), the deviance-elicited auditory deflection, explained. Psychophysiology. Blackwell Publishing Inc.; 2010;47:66–122.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
93. SanMiguel I, Saupe K, Schröger E. I know what is missing here: Electrophysiological prediction error signals elicited by omissions of predicted “what” but not “when.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. Frontiers Media S. A.; 2013;7:1–10.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
94. Oken BS, Salinsky MC, Elsas SM. Vigilance, alertness, or sustained attention: physiological basis and measurement. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2006;117:1885–901. pmid:16581292
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
95. Cote KA, Milner CE, Osip SL, Ray LB, Baxter KD. Waking Quantitative Electroencephalogram and Auditory Event-Related Potentials Following Experimentally Induced Sleep Fragmentation. Sleep. 2003;26:687–94. pmid:14572121
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
96. Horváth J, Czigler II, Birkás E, Winkler II, Gervai J. Age-related differences in distraction and reorientation in an auditory task. Neurobiology of Aging. 2009;30:1157–72. pmid:18023507
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
97. Berti S. Automatic processing of rare versus novel auditory stimuli reveal different mechanisms of auditory change detection. NeuroReport. 2012;23:441–6. pmid:22440977
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
98. Jankowiak S, Berti S. Behavioral and event-related potential distraction effects with regularly occurring auditory deviants. Psychophysiology. 2007;44:79–85. pmid:17241142
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
99. Getzmann S, Gajewski PD, Falkenstein M. Does age increase auditory distraction? Electrophysiological correlates of high and low performance in seniors. Neurobiology of Aging. Elsevier Ltd; 2013;34:1952–62.

[ref1] 1. Broadbent DE (Donald E. Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press; 1958.

[ref2] 2. Driver J. A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. British Journal of Psychology. 2001;92:53–78.
View Article
Google Scholar

[3] View Article

[4] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Cherry EC. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with 2 ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1953;25:975–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Treisman AM. Selective attention in man. British Medical Bulletin. Oxford University Press (OUP); 1964;20:12–6.

[ref5] 5. Risto . Attention and brain function. L. Erlbaum; 1992.
View Article
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Sokolov EN. Higher Nervous Functions: The Orienting Reflex. Annual Review of Physiology. Annual Reviews 4139 El Camino Way, P.O. Box 10139, Palo Alto, CA 94303–0139, USA; 1963;25:545–80.
View Article
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Schröger E. A neural mechanism for involuntary attention shifts to changes in auditory stimulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1996;8:527–39. pmid:23961983
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[16] View Article

[17] PubMed/NCBI

[18] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Theeuwes J. Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity. Perception & Psychophysics. 1991;50:184–93. pmid:1945740
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] PubMed/NCBI

[22] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Yantis S, Jonides J. Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1984;10:601–21. pmid:6238122
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[24] View Article

[25] PubMed/NCBI

[26] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Andrés P, Parmentier FBR, Escera C. The effect of age on involuntary capture of attention by irrelevant sounds: A test of the frontal hypothesis of aging. Neuropsychologia. 2006;44:2564–8. pmid:16797613
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] PubMed/NCBI

[30] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Berti S. Cognitive control after distraction: Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) dissociate between different processes of attentional allocation. Psychophysiology. 2008;45:608–20. pmid:18346043
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] PubMed/NCBI

[34] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Escera C, Alho K, Winkler I, Näätänen R. Neural mechanisms of involuntary attention to acoustic novelty and change. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1998;10:590–604. pmid:9802992
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[36] View Article

[37] PubMed/NCBI

[38] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Parmentier FBR. The cognitive determinants of behavioral distraction by deviant auditory stimuli: A review. Psychological Research [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2017 Mar 16];78:321–38. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00426-013-0534-4. pmid:24363092
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[40] View Article

[41] PubMed/NCBI

[42] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Parmentier FBR, Elford G, Escera C, Andrés P, Miguel IS. The cognitive locus of distraction by acoustic novelty in the cross-modal oddball task. Cognition. Elsevier; 2008;106:408–32.

[ref15] 15. Schröger E. On the detection of auditory deviations: A pre-attentive activation model. Psychophysiology. 1997;34:245–57. pmid:9175439
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[45] View Article

[46] PubMed/NCBI

[47] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Schröger E. The Mismatch Negativity as a Tool to Study Auditory Processing. Acta Acustica United with Acustica. 2005;91:490–501.
View Article
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Schröger E. Mismatch negativity—A microphone into auditory memory. Journal of Psychophysiology. 2007;21:138–46.
View Article
Google Scholar

[52] View Article

[53] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Berti S, Roeber U, Schröger E. Bottom-up influences on working memory: Behavioral and electrophysiological distraction varies with distractor strength. Experimental Psychology. 2004;51:249–57. pmid:15620226
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Berti S, Schröger E. A comparison of auditory and visual distraction effects: Behavioral and event-related indices. Cognitive Brain Research. 2001;10:265–73. pmid:11167050
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Munka L, Berti S. Examining task-dependencies of different attentional processes as reflected in the P3a and reorienting negativity components of the human event-related brain potential. Neuroscience Letters. 2006;396:177–81. pmid:16356637
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] PubMed/NCBI

[65] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Schröger E, Wolff C. Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of task-irrelevant sound change: a new distraction paradigm. Cognitive Brain Research. 1998;7:71–87. pmid:9714745
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] PubMed/NCBI

[69] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Horváth J, Winkler I, Bendixen A. Do N1/MMN, P3a, and RON form a strongly coupled chain reflecting the three stages of auditory distraction? Biological Psychology. 2008;79:139–47. pmid:18468765
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[71] View Article

[72] PubMed/NCBI

[73] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Weise A, Ritter W, Schröger E. The representation of unattended, segmented sounds: A mismatch negativity (MMN) study. International Journal of Psychophysiology. Elsevier B.V.; 2011;81:121–6.

[ref24] 24. Leiva A, Parmentier FBR, Andrés P. Distraction by deviance Comparing the effects of auditory and visual deviant stimuli on auditory and visual target processing. Experimental Psychology. 2015;62:54–65. pmid:25270560
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] PubMed/NCBI

[78] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Parmentier FBR, Maybery MT, Elsley J. The involuntary capture of attention by novel feature pairings: a study of voice-location integration in auditory sensory memory. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010;72:279–84. pmid:20139445
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] PubMed/NCBI

[82] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. SanMiguel I, Morgan HM, Klein C, Linden D, Escera C. On the functional significance of Novelty-P3: Facilitation by unexpected novel sounds. Biological Psychology. 2010;83:143–52. pmid:19963034
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] PubMed/NCBI

[86] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Parmentier FBR, Ljungberg JK, Elsley JVJ V, Lindkvist M. A behavioral study of distraction by vibrotactile novelty. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011;37:1134–9. pmid:21517219
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] PubMed/NCBI

[90] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Ljungberg JK, Parmentier FBR. Cross-modal distraction by deviance: Functional similarities between the auditory and tactile modalities. Experimental Psychology. 2012;59:355–63. pmid:22750743
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] PubMed/NCBI

[94] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Berti S, Schröger E. Distraction effects in vision: behavioral and event-related potential indices. NeuroReport. 2004;15:665–9. pmid:15094472
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] PubMed/NCBI

[98] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Boll S, Berti S. Distraction of task-relevant information processing by irrelevant changes in auditory, visual, and bimodal stimulus features: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Psychophysiology. 2009;46:645–54. pmid:19386054
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] PubMed/NCBI

[102] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Grimm S, Bendixen A, Deouell LY, Schröger E. Distraction in a visual multi-deviant paradigm: Behavioral and event-related potential effects. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2009;72:260–6. pmid:19452601
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] PubMed/NCBI

[106] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Leiva A, Andrés P, Parmentier FBR. When aging does not increase distraction: Evidence from pure auditory and visual oddball tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. American Psychological Association Inc.; 2015;41:1612–22.

[ref33] 33. Volosin M, Horváth J. Task difficulty modulates voluntary attention allocation, but not distraction in an auditory distraction paradigm. Brain Research. Elsevier B.V.; 2020;1727:146565.

[ref34] 34. Muller-Gass A, Campbell K. Sleep deprivation moderates neural processes associated with passive auditory capture. Brain and Cognition. Elsevier; 2019;132:89–97.

[ref35] 35. Bendixen A, Grimm S, Deouell LY, Wetzel N, Maedebach A, Schröger E. The time-course of auditory and visual distraction effects in a new crossmodal paradigm. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48:2130–9. pmid:20385149
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] PubMed/NCBI

[113] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Bendixen A, Roeber U, Schröger E. Regularity extraction and application in dynamic auditory stimulus sequences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2007;19:1664–77. pmid:18271740
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[115] View Article

[116] PubMed/NCBI

[117] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Bendixen A, Schröger E. Memory trace formation for abstract auditory features and its consequences in different attentional contexts. Biological Psychology. 2008;78:231–41. pmid:18439740
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] PubMed/NCBI

[121] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Berti S, Schröger E. Working memory controls involuntary attention switching: evidence from an auditory distraction paradigm. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2003;17:1119–22. pmid:12653989
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] PubMed/NCBI

[125] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Horváth J, Winkler I. Distraction in a continuous-stimulation detection task. Biological Psychology. 2010;83:229–38. pmid:20064580
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] PubMed/NCBI

[129] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Reiche M, Hartwigsen G, Widmann A, Saur D, Schröger E, Bendixen A. Involuntary attentional capture by speech and non-speech deviations: A combined behavioral-event-related potential study. Brain Research. 2013;1490:153–60. pmid:23123705
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] PubMed/NCBI

[133] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Roeber U, Widmann A, Schröger E. Auditory distraction by duration and location deviants: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Cognitive Brain Research. 2003;17:347–57. pmid:12880905
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] PubMed/NCBI

[137] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Schröger E, Marzecová A, SanMiguel I. Attention and prediction in human audition: A lesson from cognitive psychophysiology. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2015;41:641–64. pmid:25728182
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] PubMed/NCBI

[141] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Schröger E, Kotz SA, SanMiguel I. Bridging prediction and attention in current research on perception and action. Brain Research. 2015;1626:1–13. pmid:26348988
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] PubMed/NCBI

[145] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Bendixen A, Prinz W, Horváth J, Trujillo-Barreto NJ, Schröger E. Rapid extraction of auditory feature contingencies. Neuroimage. 2008;41:1111–9. pmid:18467129
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] PubMed/NCBI

[149] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Bubic A, von Cramon DY, Jacobsen T, Schröger E, Schubotz RI. Violation of Expectation: Neural Correlates Reflect Bases of Prediction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2009;21:155–68. pmid:18476761
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[151] View Article

[152] PubMed/NCBI

[153] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Parmentier FBR, Elsley J v., Andrés P, Barceló F. Why are auditory novels distracting? Contrasting the roles of novelty, violation of expectation and stimulus change. Cognition. 2011;119:374–80. pmid:21382615
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] PubMed/NCBI

[157] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Finzi RD, Postle BR, Brady TF, Aron AR. Unexpected events disrupt visuomotor working memory and increase guessing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review; 2018;25:651–7.
View Article
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Dutra IC, Waller DA, Wessel JR. Perceptual surprise improves action stopping by nonselectively suppressing motor activity via a neural mechanism for motor inhibition. Journal of Neuroscience. 2018;38:1482–92. pmid:29305533
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[162] View Article

[163] PubMed/NCBI

[164] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Wessel JR. Perceptual surprise aides inhibitory motor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2017;43:1585–93. pmid:28557496
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[166] View Article

[167] PubMed/NCBI

[168] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Vasilev MR, Parmentier FBR, Angele B, Kirkby JA. Distraction by deviant sounds during reading: An eye-movement study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2019;72:1863–75.

[ref51] 51. Parmentier FBR, Gallego L. Is deviance distraction immune to the prior sequential learning of stimuli and responses ? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2020.
View Article
Google Scholar

[171] View Article

[172] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Marsja E, Neely G, Ljungberg JK. Investigating deviance distraction and the impact of the modality of the to-be-ignored stimuli. Experimental Psychology. 2018;65:61–70. pmid:29631521
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[174] View Article

[175] PubMed/NCBI

[176] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Nordby H, Hammerborg D, Roth WT, Hugdahl K. ERPs for infrequent omissions and inclusions of stimulus elements. Psychophysiology. 1994;31:544–52. pmid:7846215
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] PubMed/NCBI

[180] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Sutton S, Tueting P, Zubin J, John ER. Information delivery and the sensory evoked potential. Science (1979). 1967;155:1436–9. pmid:6018511
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[182] View Article

[183] PubMed/NCBI

[184] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Bendixen A, Scharinger M, Strauß A, Obleser J. Prediction in the service of comprehension: Modulated early brain responses to omitted speech segments. Cortex. Masson SpA; 2014;53:9–26. pmid:24561233
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[186] View Article

[187] PubMed/NCBI

[188] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Tervaniemi M, Saarinen J, Paavilainen P, Danilova N, Näätänen R. Temporal integration of auditory information in sensory memory as reflected by the mismatch negativity. Biological Psychology. 1994;38:157–67. pmid:7873700
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[190] View Article

[191] PubMed/NCBI

[192] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. SanMiguel I, Widmann A, Bendixen A, Trujillo-Barreto N, Schröger E. Hearing silences: Human auditory processing relies on preactivation of sound-specific brain activity patterns. Journal of Neuroscience. 2013;33:8633–9. pmid:23678108
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[194] View Article

[195] PubMed/NCBI

[196] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Dercksen TT, Widmann A, Schröger E, Wetzel N. Omission related brain responses reflect specific and unspecific action-effect couplings. Neuroimage. Elsevier BV; 2020;215:116840.

[ref59] 59. Yabe H, Tervaniemi M, Reinikainen K, Näätänen R. Temporal window of integration revealed by MMN to sound omission. NeuroReport. 1997;8:1971–4. pmid:9223087
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[199] View Article

[200] PubMed/NCBI

[201] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Horváth J, Müller D, Weise A, Schröger E. Omission mismatch negativity builds up late. NeuroReport. 2010;21:537–41. pmid:20386487
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[203] View Article

[204] PubMed/NCBI

[205] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Wacongne C, Changeux J-P, Dehaene S. A neuronal model of predictive coding accounting for the mismatch negativity. Journal of Neuroscience. 2012;32:3665–78. pmid:22423089
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[207] View Article

[208] PubMed/NCBI

[209] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Hackley SA. The speeding of voluntary reaction by a warning signal. Psychophysiology. 2009;46:225–33. pmid:18811626
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[211] View Article

[212] PubMed/NCBI

[213] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Niemi P, Näätänen R. Foreperiod and simple reaction-time. Psychological Bulletin. 1981;89:133–62.
View Article
Google Scholar

[215] View Article

[216] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Davis R, Green FA. Intersensory differences in the effect of warning signals on reaction time. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1969;30:155–67.
View Article
Google Scholar

[218] View Article

[219] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Bertelson P. Time course of preparation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1967;19:272–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[221] View Article

[222] Google Scholar

[ref66] 66. Wundt W. Neunzehntes Kapitel. Verlauf und Assoziation der Vorstellungen. Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie. Leipzig: Verlag Von WilhelmEngelmann; 1874. p. 726–819.

[ref67] 67. Parmentier FBR. Deviant sounds yield distraction irrespective of the sounds’ informational value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. American Psychological Association Inc.; 2016;42:837–46.

[ref68] 68. Parmentier FBR, Vasilev MR, Andrés P. Surprise as an explanation to auditory novelty distraction and post-error slowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. in press. 2018;148:192–200. pmid:30346199
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[226] View Article

[227] PubMed/NCBI

[228] Google Scholar

[ref69] 69. Ljungberg JK, Parmentier FBR, Leiva A, Vega N. The informational constraints of behavioral distraction by unexpected sounds: The role of event information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition. 2012;38:1461–8. pmid:22563629
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[230] View Article

[231] PubMed/NCBI

[232] Google Scholar

[ref70] 70. Li B, Parmentier FBR, Zhang M. Behavioral distraction by auditory deviance is mediated by the sound’s informational value: Evidence from an auditory discrimination task. Experimental Psychology. 2013;60:260–8.
View Article
Google Scholar

[234] View Article

[235] Google Scholar

[ref71] 71. Wetzel N, Schröger E, Widmann A. The dissociation between the P3a event-related potential and behavioral distraction. Psychophysiology. 2013;50:920–30. pmid:23763292
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[237] View Article

[238] PubMed/NCBI

[239] Google Scholar

[ref72] 72. Wetzel N, Widmann A, Schröger E. Distraction and facilitation-two faces of the same coin? Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance. 2012;38:664–74. pmid:22022895
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[241] View Article

[242] PubMed/NCBI

[243] Google Scholar

[ref73] 73. Parmentier FBR, Elsley J V., Ljungberg JK. Behavioral distraction by auditory novelty is not only about novelty: The role of the distracter’s informational value. Cognition. 2010;115:504–11. pmid:20338553
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[245] View Article

[246] PubMed/NCBI

[247] Google Scholar

[ref74] 74. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007;39:175–91. pmid:17695343
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[249] View Article

[250] PubMed/NCBI

[251] Google Scholar

[ref75] 75. Calculating Lakens D. and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology. 2013;4:1–12.
View Article
Google Scholar

[253] View Article

[254] Google Scholar

[ref76] 76. Jeffreys H. Theory of probability. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1961.

[ref77] 77. Jarosz AF, Wiley J. What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting bayes factors. Journal of Problem Solving. 2014;7:2–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[257] View Article

[258] Google Scholar

[ref78] 78. Ahveninen J, Jaaskelainen IP, Pekkonen E, Hallberg A, Hietanen M, Näätänen R, et al. Increased distractibility by task-irrelevant sound changes in abstinent alcoholics. Alcoholism-Clinical and Experimental Research. 2000;24:1850–4. pmid:11141044
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[260] View Article

[261] PubMed/NCBI

[262] Google Scholar

[ref79] 79. Kähkönen S, Ahveninen J, Pekkonen E, Kaakkola S, Huttunen J, Ilmoniemi RJ, et al. Dopamine modulates involuntary attention shifting and reorienting: An electromagnetic study. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2002;113:1894–902. pmid:12464326
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[264] View Article

[265] PubMed/NCBI

[266] Google Scholar

[ref80] 80. Parmentier FBR, Andrés P. The involuntary capture of attention by sound novelty and postnovelty distraction in young and older adults. Experimental Psychology. 2010;57:68–76. pmid:20178965
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[268] View Article

[269] PubMed/NCBI

[270] Google Scholar

[ref81] 81. Roeber U, Berti S, Schröger E. Auditory distraction with different presentation rates: an event-related potential and behavioral study. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2003;114:341–9. pmid:12559243
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[272] View Article

[273] PubMed/NCBI

[274] Google Scholar

[ref82] 82. Nousak JMK, Deacon D, Ritter W, Vaughan HG Jr. Storage of information in transient auditory memory. Cognitive Brain Research. 1996;4:305–17.
View Article
Google Scholar

[276] View Article

[277] Google Scholar

[ref83] 83. Roeber U, Berti S, Widmann A, Schröger E. Response repetition vs. response change modulates behavioral and electrophysiological effects of distraction. Cognitive Brain Research. 2005;22:451–6. pmid:15722214
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[279] View Article

[280] PubMed/NCBI

[281] Google Scholar

[ref84] 84. Pacheco-Unguetti AP, Parmentier FBR. Happiness increases distraction by auditory deviant stimuli. Br J Psychol. 2016;107:419–33. pmid:26302716
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[283] View Article

[284] PubMed/NCBI

[285] Google Scholar

[ref85] 85. Pacheco-Unguetti AP, Parmentier FBR. Sadness increases distraction by auditory deviant stimuli. Emotion. 2014;14:203–13. pmid:24098923
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[287] View Article

[288] PubMed/NCBI

[289] Google Scholar

[ref86] 86. Alho K, Escera C, Díaz R, Yago E, Serra JM, Diaz R, et al. Effects of involuntary auditory attention on visual task performance and brain activity. NeuroReport. 1997;8:3233–7. pmid:9351649
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[291] View Article

[292] PubMed/NCBI

[293] Google Scholar

[ref87] 87. Escera C, Yago E, Corral M-JJ, Corbera S, Nuñez MI. Attention capture by auditory significant stimuli: semantic analysis follows attention switching. European Journal of …. 2003;18:2408–12. pmid:14622204
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[295] View Article

[296] PubMed/NCBI

[297] Google Scholar

[ref88] 88. Gumenyuk V, Korzyukov O, Alho K, Escera C, Naatanen R. Effects of auditory distraction on electrophysiological brain activity and performance in children aged 8–13 years. Psychophysiology [Internet]. 2004;41:30–6. Available from: %3CGo pmid:14692998
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[299] View Article

[300] PubMed/NCBI

[301] Google Scholar

[ref89] 89. SanMiguel I, Corral M-JM-J, Escera C. When loading working memory reduces distraction: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence from an auditory-visual distraction paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008;20:1131–45. pmid:18284343
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[303] View Article

[304] PubMed/NCBI

[305] Google Scholar

[ref90] 90. van Mourik R, Oosterlaan J, Heslenfeld DJ, Konig CE, Sergeant JA. When distraction is not distracting: A behavioral and ERP study on distraction in ADHD. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2007;118:1855–65. pmid:17576093
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[307] View Article

[308] PubMed/NCBI

[309] Google Scholar

[ref91] 91. Ljungberg JK, Parmentier FBR, Jones DM, Marsja E, Neely G. “What’s in a name?” “No more than when it’s mine own”. Evidence from auditory oddball distraction. Acta Psychologica. Elsevier; 2014;150:161–6.

[ref92] 92. May PJCC, Tiitinen H. Mismatch negativity (MMN), the deviance-elicited auditory deflection, explained. Psychophysiology. Blackwell Publishing Inc.; 2010;47:66–122.
View Article
Google Scholar

[312] View Article

[313] Google Scholar

[ref93] 93. SanMiguel I, Saupe K, Schröger E. I know what is missing here: Electrophysiological prediction error signals elicited by omissions of predicted “what” but not “when.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. Frontiers Media S. A.; 2013;7:1–10.
View Article
Google Scholar

[315] View Article

[316] Google Scholar

[ref94] 94. Oken BS, Salinsky MC, Elsas SM. Vigilance, alertness, or sustained attention: physiological basis and measurement. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2006;117:1885–901. pmid:16581292
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[318] View Article

[319] PubMed/NCBI

[320] Google Scholar

[ref95] 95. Cote KA, Milner CE, Osip SL, Ray LB, Baxter KD. Waking Quantitative Electroencephalogram and Auditory Event-Related Potentials Following Experimentally Induced Sleep Fragmentation. Sleep. 2003;26:687–94. pmid:14572121
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[322] View Article

[323] PubMed/NCBI

[324] Google Scholar

[ref96] 96. Horváth J, Czigler II, Birkás E, Winkler II, Gervai J. Age-related differences in distraction and reorientation in an auditory task. Neurobiology of Aging. 2009;30:1157–72. pmid:18023507
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[326] View Article

[327] PubMed/NCBI

[328] Google Scholar

[ref97] 97. Berti S. Automatic processing of rare versus novel auditory stimuli reveal different mechanisms of auditory change detection. NeuroReport. 2012;23:441–6. pmid:22440977
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[330] View Article

[331] PubMed/NCBI

[332] Google Scholar

[ref98] 98. Jankowiak S, Berti S. Behavioral and event-related potential distraction effects with regularly occurring auditory deviants. Psychophysiology. 2007;44:79–85. pmid:17241142
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[334] View Article

[335] PubMed/NCBI

[336] Google Scholar

[ref99] 99. Getzmann S, Gajewski PD, Falkenstein M. Does age increase auditory distraction? Electrophysiological correlates of high and low performance in seniors. Neurobiology of Aging. Elsevier Ltd; 2013;34:1952–62.

Figures