The time course of distractor-based response activation with predictable and unpredictable target onset

Flexible processing of distractor stimuli under stress

Acute stress is assumed to affect executive processing of stimulus information, although extant studies have yielded heterogeneous findings. The temporal flanker task, in which a target stimulus is preceded by a distractor of varying utility, offers a means of investigating various components involved in the adjustment of information processing and conflict control. Both behavioral and EEG data obtained with this task suggest stronger distractor-related response activation in conditions associated with higher predictivity of the distractor for the upcoming target. In two experiments we investigated distractor-related processing and conflict control after inducing acute stress (Trier Social Stress Test). Although the stressed groups did not differ significantly from unstressed control groups concerning behavioral markers of attentional adjustment (i.e., Proportion Congruent Effect), or event-related sensory components in the EEG (i.e., posterior P1 and N1), the lateralized readiness potential demonstrated reduced activation evoked by (predictive) distractor information under stress. Our results suggest flexible adjustment of attention under stress but hint at decreased usage of nominally irrelevant stimulus information for biasing response selection.

Attentional adjustment in priming tasks: control strategies depend on context

Goal-directed behavior is assumed to require processes of attentional biasing to counter unwanted action tendencies elicited by distracting stimulus information. This is particularly so if stimulus categories that define the target and the distractor frequently reverse, requiring participants to respond to previously ignored stimulus categories and vice versa. In the current study, we investigated control strategies under such conditions. Specifically, we assessed trial-to-trial modulation of distractor-interference (i.e., congruency sequence effect, CSE) in a temporal flanker task associated with repetition versus alternation of the assignment of stimulus category (i.e., digits, letters) to targets and distractors (i.e., the character presented second or first, respectively) under conditions of a long SOA of 1000 ms (Experiment 1A) and 1200 ms (Experiment 1B). Whereas previous research, using a shorter SOA, suggested temporal-order control (i.e., the occurrence of a CSE in both repetition and-albeit less pronounced-alternation trials), lengthening the distractor-target SOA resulted in a CSE confined to repetition trials, suggesting strong or exclusive reliance on stimulus categories for attentional control (Experiment 1A and B). Adding a redundant stimulus feature (i.e., color), discriminating targets and distractors, eliminated the difference of CSE patterns in repetition and alternation trials (Experiment 2). Together, our results suggest that the strength of concurrently applied control strategies or the choice of a particular control strategy depend on contextual factors.

Independent control processes? Evidence for concurrent distractor inhibition and attentional usage of distractor information

Interference evoked by a distractor presented prior to a target stimulus is reduced when the distractor-target SOA is increased, suggesting inhibition of distractor-related activation. Distractor processing is also assumed to be (strategically) adjusted to the proportions of congruent and incongruent target-distractor combinations, yielding a larger distractor interference effect when the proportion of congruent trials is higher (i.e., Proportion Congruent Effect, PCE). To explore the interplay of proportion congruent-based processing adjustment and the time course of distractor-related activation we varied the proportions of congruent and incongruent trials as well as the distractor-target SOA. To control for item-specific priming we kept distractor-related contingencies (i.e., frequency of individual distractor-target conjunctions) constant for a subset of the stimuli (and used a different subset to manipulate the proportions of congruent and incongruent trials). A PCE occurred, even for the subset of stimuli associated with constant distractor-related contingencies, thus ruling out item-specific contingency learning. Distractor interference was reduced when the SOA was increased, but this reduction did not differ between the proportion congruent conditions, as confirmed by a Bayesian analysis. Our results are consistent with independent processes pertaining to usage of distractor information for biasing response selection and distractor inhibition during the SOA. Alternative interpretations of the independent effects of the PC manipulation and the distractor-target SOA are discussed.