Cargando…

Distraction by auditory novelty during reading: Evidence for disruption in saccade planning, but not saccade execution

Novel or unexpected sounds that deviate from an otherwise repetitive sequence of the same sound cause behavioural distraction. Recent work has suggested that distraction also occurs during reading as fixation durations increased when a deviant sound was presented at the fixation onset of words. The...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vasilev, Martin R, Parmentier, Fabrice BR, Kirkby, Julie A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8054167/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33283659
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1747021820982267
_version_ 1783680252383330304
author Vasilev, Martin R
Parmentier, Fabrice BR
Kirkby, Julie A
author_facet Vasilev, Martin R
Parmentier, Fabrice BR
Kirkby, Julie A
author_sort Vasilev, Martin R
collection PubMed
description Novel or unexpected sounds that deviate from an otherwise repetitive sequence of the same sound cause behavioural distraction. Recent work has suggested that distraction also occurs during reading as fixation durations increased when a deviant sound was presented at the fixation onset of words. The present study tested the hypothesis that this increase in fixation durations occurs due to saccadic inhibition. This was done by manipulating the temporal onset of sounds relative to the fixation onset of words in the text. If novel sounds cause saccadic inhibition, they should be more distracting when presented during the second half of fixations when saccade programming usually takes place. Participants read single sentences and heard a 120 ms sound when they fixated five target words in the sentence. On most occasions (p = .9), the same sine wave tone was presented (“standard”), while on the remaining occasions (p = .1) a new sound was presented (“novel”). Critically, sounds were played, on average, either during the first half of the fixation (0 ms delay) or during the second half of the fixation (120 ms delay). Consistent with the saccadic inhibition hypothesis (SIH), novel sounds led to longer fixation durations in the 120 ms compared to the 0 ms delay condition. However, novel sounds did not generally influence the execution of the subsequent saccade. These results suggest that unexpected sounds have a rapid influence on saccade planning, but not saccade execution.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8054167
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80541672021-05-04 Distraction by auditory novelty during reading: Evidence for disruption in saccade planning, but not saccade execution Vasilev, Martin R Parmentier, Fabrice BR Kirkby, Julie A Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) Original Articles Novel or unexpected sounds that deviate from an otherwise repetitive sequence of the same sound cause behavioural distraction. Recent work has suggested that distraction also occurs during reading as fixation durations increased when a deviant sound was presented at the fixation onset of words. The present study tested the hypothesis that this increase in fixation durations occurs due to saccadic inhibition. This was done by manipulating the temporal onset of sounds relative to the fixation onset of words in the text. If novel sounds cause saccadic inhibition, they should be more distracting when presented during the second half of fixations when saccade programming usually takes place. Participants read single sentences and heard a 120 ms sound when they fixated five target words in the sentence. On most occasions (p = .9), the same sine wave tone was presented (“standard”), while on the remaining occasions (p = .1) a new sound was presented (“novel”). Critically, sounds were played, on average, either during the first half of the fixation (0 ms delay) or during the second half of the fixation (120 ms delay). Consistent with the saccadic inhibition hypothesis (SIH), novel sounds led to longer fixation durations in the 120 ms compared to the 0 ms delay condition. However, novel sounds did not generally influence the execution of the subsequent saccade. These results suggest that unexpected sounds have a rapid influence on saccade planning, but not saccade execution. SAGE Publications 2021-01-12 2021-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8054167/ /pubmed/33283659 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1747021820982267 Text en © Experimental Psychology Society 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Articles
Vasilev, Martin R
Parmentier, Fabrice BR
Kirkby, Julie A
Distraction by auditory novelty during reading: Evidence for disruption in saccade planning, but not saccade execution
title Distraction by auditory novelty during reading: Evidence for disruption in saccade planning, but not saccade execution
title_full Distraction by auditory novelty during reading: Evidence for disruption in saccade planning, but not saccade execution
title_fullStr Distraction by auditory novelty during reading: Evidence for disruption in saccade planning, but not saccade execution
title_full_unstemmed Distraction by auditory novelty during reading: Evidence for disruption in saccade planning, but not saccade execution
title_short Distraction by auditory novelty during reading: Evidence for disruption in saccade planning, but not saccade execution
title_sort distraction by auditory novelty during reading: evidence for disruption in saccade planning, but not saccade execution
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8054167/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33283659
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1747021820982267
work_keys_str_mv AT vasilevmartinr distractionbyauditorynoveltyduringreadingevidencefordisruptioninsaccadeplanningbutnotsaccadeexecution
AT parmentierfabricebr distractionbyauditorynoveltyduringreadingevidencefordisruptioninsaccadeplanningbutnotsaccadeexecution
AT kirkbyjuliea distractionbyauditorynoveltyduringreadingevidencefordisruptioninsaccadeplanningbutnotsaccadeexecution