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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |