Limits...
What we expect is not always what we get: evidence for both the direction-of-change and the specific-stimulus hypotheses of auditory attentional capture.

Nöstl A, Marsh JE, Sörqvist P - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: Experiment 1 found that deviants capture attention as a function of the pitch difference between the deviant and the replaced/expected tone.The results support the expectation violation account of auditory distraction and suggest that there are at least two different expectations that can be violated: One appears to be bound to a specific stimulus and the other would seem to be bound to a more global cross-stimulus rule such as the direction-of-change based on a sequence of preceding sound events.Factors like base-rate probability of tones within the sound environment might become the driving mechanism of attentional capture--rather than violated expectations--in complex sound environments.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.

ABSTRACT
Participants were requested to respond to a sequence of visual targets while listening to a well-known lullaby. One of the notes in the lullaby was occasionally exchanged with a pattern deviant. Experiment 1 found that deviants capture attention as a function of the pitch difference between the deviant and the replaced/expected tone. However, when the pitch difference between the expected tone and the deviant tone is held constant, a violation to the direction-of-pitch change across tones can also capture attention (Experiment 2). Moreover, in more complex auditory environments, wherein it is difficult to build a coherent neural model of the sound environment from which expectations are formed, deviations can capture attention but it appears to matter less whether this is a violation from a specific stimulus or a violation of the current direction-of-change (Experiment 3). The results support the expectation violation account of auditory distraction and suggest that there are at least two different expectations that can be violated: One appears to be bound to a specific stimulus and the other would seem to be bound to a more global cross-stimulus rule such as the direction-of-change based on a sequence of preceding sound events. Factors like base-rate probability of tones within the sound environment might become the driving mechanism of attentional capture--rather than violated expectations--in complex sound environments.

Show MeSH
Mean response time data for standard trials and the four types of pattern deviants in Experiment 1.The deviants were F#5 (i.e., a small deviation from the replaced tone and an unexpected sequence-change direction), F5 (i.e., a perceptual change from the previous sound stimulus is held constant, but a small deviation from the replaced tone and an unexpected change direction), E4 (i.e., an intermediate deviation from the replaced tone, but a change in the expected direction) and E3 (i.e., a large deviation from the replaced tone, but a change in the expected direction). Error bars represent standard error of means.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4230934&req=5

pone-0111997-g003: Mean response time data for standard trials and the four types of pattern deviants in Experiment 1.The deviants were F#5 (i.e., a small deviation from the replaced tone and an unexpected sequence-change direction), F5 (i.e., a perceptual change from the previous sound stimulus is held constant, but a small deviation from the replaced tone and an unexpected change direction), E4 (i.e., an intermediate deviation from the replaced tone, but a change in the expected direction) and E3 (i.e., a large deviation from the replaced tone, but a change in the expected direction). Error bars represent standard error of means.

Mentions: The response time data for the four types of pattern deviants and for the standard (i.e., average response time to the arrow following the ‘F5’ note just before a pattern deviant) collapsed across all trial blocks are reported in Figure 3. A repeated-measures ANOVA with response time data as dependent variable and trial type as independent variable revealed a significant effect, F(4, 92)  = 11.47, MSE = 763.42, p<.001, ηp2 = .33. The ‘E3’ pattern deviant (i.e., largest pitch difference from the replaced note, but in line with the current direction of change) captured attention to a larger degree than the ‘E4’ pattern deviant, t(23)  = 2.44, p = .023, the ‘F5’ pattern deviant, t(23)  = 3.29, p = .003, and the standard trials, t(23)  = 5.10, p<.001. Most importantly, the ‘E3’ pattern deviant also captured attention to a larger degree than the ‘F#5’ pattern deviant (i.e., relatively small pitch difference from the replaced note but inconsistent with the current direction of pitch change), t(23)  = 3.68, p = .001. Furthermore, the ‘E4’ pattern deviant also captured attention to a larger degree than the ‘F#5’ pattern deviant, t(23)  = 2.40, p = .025, and the difference between the ‘E4’ and ‘F5’ pattern deviants was marginal, t(23)  = 1.96, p = .065.


What we expect is not always what we get: evidence for both the direction-of-change and the specific-stimulus hypotheses of auditory attentional capture.

Nöstl A, Marsh JE, Sörqvist P - PLoS ONE (2014)

Mean response time data for standard trials and the four types of pattern deviants in Experiment 1.The deviants were F#5 (i.e., a small deviation from the replaced tone and an unexpected sequence-change direction), F5 (i.e., a perceptual change from the previous sound stimulus is held constant, but a small deviation from the replaced tone and an unexpected change direction), E4 (i.e., an intermediate deviation from the replaced tone, but a change in the expected direction) and E3 (i.e., a large deviation from the replaced tone, but a change in the expected direction). Error bars represent standard error of means.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4230934&req=5

pone-0111997-g003: Mean response time data for standard trials and the four types of pattern deviants in Experiment 1.The deviants were F#5 (i.e., a small deviation from the replaced tone and an unexpected sequence-change direction), F5 (i.e., a perceptual change from the previous sound stimulus is held constant, but a small deviation from the replaced tone and an unexpected change direction), E4 (i.e., an intermediate deviation from the replaced tone, but a change in the expected direction) and E3 (i.e., a large deviation from the replaced tone, but a change in the expected direction). Error bars represent standard error of means.
Mentions: The response time data for the four types of pattern deviants and for the standard (i.e., average response time to the arrow following the ‘F5’ note just before a pattern deviant) collapsed across all trial blocks are reported in Figure 3. A repeated-measures ANOVA with response time data as dependent variable and trial type as independent variable revealed a significant effect, F(4, 92)  = 11.47, MSE = 763.42, p<.001, ηp2 = .33. The ‘E3’ pattern deviant (i.e., largest pitch difference from the replaced note, but in line with the current direction of change) captured attention to a larger degree than the ‘E4’ pattern deviant, t(23)  = 2.44, p = .023, the ‘F5’ pattern deviant, t(23)  = 3.29, p = .003, and the standard trials, t(23)  = 5.10, p<.001. Most importantly, the ‘E3’ pattern deviant also captured attention to a larger degree than the ‘F#5’ pattern deviant (i.e., relatively small pitch difference from the replaced note but inconsistent with the current direction of pitch change), t(23)  = 3.68, p = .001. Furthermore, the ‘E4’ pattern deviant also captured attention to a larger degree than the ‘F#5’ pattern deviant, t(23)  = 2.40, p = .025, and the difference between the ‘E4’ and ‘F5’ pattern deviants was marginal, t(23)  = 1.96, p = .065.

Bottom Line: Experiment 1 found that deviants capture attention as a function of the pitch difference between the deviant and the replaced/expected tone.The results support the expectation violation account of auditory distraction and suggest that there are at least two different expectations that can be violated: One appears to be bound to a specific stimulus and the other would seem to be bound to a more global cross-stimulus rule such as the direction-of-change based on a sequence of preceding sound events.Factors like base-rate probability of tones within the sound environment might become the driving mechanism of attentional capture--rather than violated expectations--in complex sound environments.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.

ABSTRACT
Participants were requested to respond to a sequence of visual targets while listening to a well-known lullaby. One of the notes in the lullaby was occasionally exchanged with a pattern deviant. Experiment 1 found that deviants capture attention as a function of the pitch difference between the deviant and the replaced/expected tone. However, when the pitch difference between the expected tone and the deviant tone is held constant, a violation to the direction-of-pitch change across tones can also capture attention (Experiment 2). Moreover, in more complex auditory environments, wherein it is difficult to build a coherent neural model of the sound environment from which expectations are formed, deviations can capture attention but it appears to matter less whether this is a violation from a specific stimulus or a violation of the current direction-of-change (Experiment 3). The results support the expectation violation account of auditory distraction and suggest that there are at least two different expectations that can be violated: One appears to be bound to a specific stimulus and the other would seem to be bound to a more global cross-stimulus rule such as the direction-of-change based on a sequence of preceding sound events. Factors like base-rate probability of tones within the sound environment might become the driving mechanism of attentional capture--rather than violated expectations--in complex sound environments.

Show MeSH