Effects of spatial response coding on distractor processing: Evidence from auditory spatial negative priming tasks with keypress, joystick, and head movement responses
Prior studies of spatial negative priming indicate that distractor-assigned keypress responses are inhibited as part of visual, but not auditory, processing. However, recent evidence suggests that static keypress responses are not directly activated by spatially presented sounds and, therefore, might not call for an inhibitory process. In order to investigate the role of response inhibition in auditory processing, we used spatially directed responses that have been shown to result in direct response activation to irrelevant sounds. Participants localized a target sound by performing manual joystick responses (Experiment 1) or head movements (Experiment 2B) while ignoring a concurrent distractor sound. Relations between prime distractor and probe target were systematically manipulated (repeated vs. changed) with respect to identity and location. Experiment 2A investigated the influence of distractor sounds on spatial parameters of head movements toward target locations and showed that distractor-assigned responses are immediately inhibited to prevent false responding in the ongoing trial. Interestingly, performance in Experiments 1 and 2B was not generally impaired when the probe target appeared at the location of the former prime distractor and required a previously withheld and presumably inhibited response. Instead, performance was impaired only when prime distractor and probe target mismatched in terms of location or identity, which fully conforms to the feature-mismatching hypothesis. Together, the results suggest that response inhibition operates in auditory processing when response activation is provided but is presumably too short-lived to affect responding on the subsequent trial.
KeywordsAuditory Distractor processing Attention Inhibition Object-binding
The research reported in this article was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Ma 2610/2-2). We thank Laura Mieth for her assistance with data collection.
Malte Möller, Institut für Experimentelle Psychologie, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany; Susanne Mayr, Institut für Experimentelle Psychologie, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany; Axel Buchner, Institut für Experimentelle Psychologie, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.): Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Coles, M. G. H., Gratton, G., Bashore, T. R., Eriksen, C. W., & Donchin, E. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(5), 529–553. doi: 10.1037/0096-1522.214.171.1249 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 731–750. doi: 10.1037/0096-15126.96.36.1991 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Georgopoulos, A. (1997). Voluntary movement: Computational principles and neural mechanisms. In M. Rugg (Ed.), Cognitive Neuroscience (pp. 131–168). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Holm, S. (1979). A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.Google Scholar
- Houghton, G., & Tipper, S. P. (1994). A model of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention. In D. Dagenbach & T. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 53–112). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Houghton, G., & Tipper, S. P. (1999). Attention and the control of action: An investigation of the effects of selection on population coding of hand and eye movement. In D. Heinke, G. W. Humphreys, & A. Olsen (Eds.), Connectionist models in cognitive neuroscience (Proceedings of the 5th neural computational and psychological workshop) (pp. 283–298). New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pumphrey, R. J. (1950). Hearing. Symposium of the Society for Experimental Biology, 4, 3–18.Google Scholar
- Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action (pp. 494–519). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Oxford, England: North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Sokolov, E. N., Worters, R., & Clarke, A. D. B. (1963). Perception and the conditioned reflex. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Treisman, A. (1993). The perception of features and objects. In A. Baddeley & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.), Attention: Selection, awareness, and control: A tribute to Donald Broadbent (pp. 5–35). New York, NY: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Welsh, T. N., & Elliott, D. (2004). Movement trajectories in the presence of a distracting stimulus: Evidence for a response activation model of selective reaching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 57(6), 1031–1057. doi: 10.1080/02724980343000666 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar