Crossmodal attentional control sets between vision and audition

Do Real-Time Strategy Video Gamers Have Better Attentional Control?

OBJECTIVE

Do real-time strategy (RTS) video gamers have better attentional control? To examine this issue, we tested experienced versus inexperienced RTS video gamers on multi-object tracking tasks (MOT) and dual-MOT tasks with visual or auditory secondary tasks (dMOT). We employed a street-crossing task with a visual working memory task as a secondary task in a virtual reality (VR) environment to examine any generalized attentional advantage.

BACKGROUND

Similar to action video games, RTS video games require players to switch attention between multiple visual objects and views. However, whether the attentional control advantage is limited by sensory modalities or generalizes to real-life tasks remains unclear.

METHOD

In study 1, 25 RTS video game players (SVGP) and 25 non-video game players (NVGP) completed the MOT task and two dMOT tasks. In study 2, a different sample with 25 SVGP and 25 NVGP completed a simulated street-crossing task with the visual dual task in a VR environment.

RESULTS

After controlling the effects of the speed-accuracy trade-off, SVGP showed better performance than NVGP in the MOT task and the visual dMOT task, but SVGP did not perform better in either the auditory dMOT task or the street-crossing task.

CONCLUSION

RTS video gamers had better attentional control in visual computer tasks, but not in the auditory tasks and the VR tasks. Attentional control benefits associated with RTS video game experience may be limited by sensory modalities, and may not translate to performance benefits in real-life tasks.

Investigating attentional control sets: Evidence for the compilation of multi-feature control sets

Top-down control over stimulus-driven attentional capture, as postulated by the contingent capture hypothesis, has been a topic of lively scientific debate for a number of years now. According to the latter hypothesis, a stimulus has to match the feature of a top-down established control set in order to be selected automatically. Today, research on the topic of contingent capture has focused mostly on the manipulation of only a single feature separating the target from the distractors (the selection feature). The research presented here examined the compilation of top-down attentional control sets having multiple selection features. We report three experiments in which the feature overlap between the distractor and the top-down sets was manipulated on different perceptual features (e.g., colour, orientation and location). Distractors could match three, two or one of the features of the top-down sets. In line with our hypotheses, the strength of the distractor interference effects decreased linearly as the feature overlap between the distractor and the participants' top-down sets decreased. These results therefore suggest a decline in the efficiency with which distractors involuntarily capture attention as the target-similarity decreases. The data support the idea of multi-feature attentional control sets and are discussed in light of prominent contemporary theories of visual attention.

Interference of irrelevant information in multisensory selection depends on attentional set

In the multisensory world in which we live, certain objects and events are of more relevance than others. In the laboratory, this broadly equates to the distinction between targets and distractors. In selection situations like the flanker task, the evidence suggests that the processing of multisensory distractors is influenced by attention. Here, multisensory distractor processing was investigated by modulating attentional set in three experiments in a flanker interference task, in which the targets were unisensory while the distractors were multisensory. Attentional set was modulated by making the target modality either predictable or unpredictable (Experiments 1 vs. 2, respectively). In Experiment 3, this manipulation was implemented on a within-experiment basis. Furthermore, the third experiment compared audiovisual distractors (used in all experiments) with distractors with one feature in a neutral modality (i.e., touch), that never appeared as the target modality in the flanker task. The results demonstrate that there was no interference from the response-compatible crossmodal distractor feature when the target modality was predictable (i.e., blocked). However, when the modality was varied on a trial-by-trial basis, this crossmodal feature significantly influenced information processing. By contrast, a multisensory distractor with a neutral crossmodal feature never influenced behavior. This finding suggests that the processing of multisensory distractors depends on attentional set. When the target modality varies randomly, participants include features from both modalities in their attentional set and the irrelevant crossmodal feature, now part of the set, influences information processing. In contrast, interference from the crossmodal distractor feature does not occur when it is not part of the attentional set.

Effects of perceptual load and socially meaningful stimuli on crossmodal selective attention in Autism Spectrum Disorder and neurotypical samples

The present study examined whether increasing visual perceptual load differentially affected both Socially Meaningful and Non-socially Meaningful auditory stimulus awareness in neurotypical (NT, n = 59) adults and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD, n = 57) adults. On a target trial, an unexpected critical auditory stimulus (CAS), either a Non-socially Meaningful ('beep' sound) or Socially Meaningful ('hi') stimulus, was played concurrently with the presentation of the visual task. Under conditions of low visual perceptual load both NT and ASD samples reliably noticed the CAS at similar rates (77-81%), whether the CAS was Socially Meaningful or Non-socially Meaningful. However, during high visual perceptual load NT and ASD participants reliably noticed the meaningful CAS (NT = 71%, ASD = 67%), but NT participants were unlikely to notice the Non-meaningful CAS (20%), whereas ASD participants reliably noticed it (80%), suggesting an inability to engage selective attention to ignore non-salient irrelevant distractor stimuli in ASD.