Ready to be distracted: Further evidence that the alerting-congruency interaction requires stimulus-response directional associations

Alerting effects require the absence of surprise

Ongoing actions are interrupted for a brief period of time whenever salient and expectancy-discrepant stimuli (surprise stimuli) interfere with the present task set. By contrast, salient stimuli (alerting cues) preceding targets can facilitate behaviour by reducing time to initiate actions. Both phenomena seem to be at odds with each other as actions are either impaired or facilitated. Therefore, in the present study, we asked how surprise and alerting effects interact. In two experiments, participants performed choice reaction tasks without any prior knowledge of the impending alerting cue. After a baseline period of trials without an alerting cue, the alerting cue was presented for the first time. It was found that the initial presentation of the alerting cue significantly slowed down reaction times. However, after just a single trial this impairment went away. This reveals that the beneficial effects of alerting for action presuppose that alerting cues are expected and represented in the top-down task set. As such, the present findings challenge the standard view of phasic alerting as a bottom-up and entirely stimulus-driven phenomenon.

Effects of alerting signals on the spatial Stroop effect: evidence for modality differences

Reaction times and error rates to a target's identity are impaired when the target is presented in a location that mismatches the response required, relative to situations where the location of the target and required response overlap (the Simon effect) and the same is true when the target's identity conveys spatial information (the spatial Stroop effect). Prior studies have found that visual versions of the spatial Stroop effect are magnified when alerting cues appear before the target and results are consistent with a dual-route framework where alerting cues boost automatic stimulus-response motor associations through the direct processing route. However, the influence of alerting signals on auditory versions of the spatial Stroop effect have not been tested and there are reasons to believe that the alerting-congruency interaction may differ across stimulus modality. In two experiments the effects of alerting cues on auditory (Experiment 1; N = 98) and visual (Experiment 2; N = 97) spatial Stroop effects are examined. Results show that alerting cues boost the spatial Stroop effect with visual stimuli but not auditory stimuli and a distributional analysis provides support for there being modality differences in the decay (or inhibition) of response-code activation. Implications for explanations of the alerting-congruence interaction are discussed.

Testing the saliency-based account of phasic alertness

As an essential component of the human attention system, the effect of phasic alertness refers to the change of performance with the presence of a preceding warning signal. Weinbach and Henik (Cognition, 133 (2), 414-419, 2014) argued that phasic alertness is an adaptive mechanism that diverts attention to salient events. This mechanism enhances selective attention when the critical event is more salient than others. When selective attention to less salient details is required, phasic alertness can lead to more interference from task-irrelevant information. The experiment on which this saliency-based account of phasic alertness is based has not been replicated. In two experiments, the present study attempted to replicate the alertness-related findings of Weinbach and Henik. Although we used a similar design, the results did not reveal evidence for an interaction between phasic alertness and response congruency in the global/local processing task. Our results do not support the saliency-based account of phasic alertness. We argue that more systematic investigation is needed for this phasic alertness account.

Is the alerting-congruency interaction that is seen in experiments with stimulus-response motor associations moderated by a concurrent working-memory load?

The mechanisms underlying attention, distraction, and cognitive control have been widely studied, and results consistently show that reaction times are affected by alerting cues as well as by concurrent distraction. In addition, when distractors have pre-existing directional motor associations, alerting and distractor congruency interact in a manner where distractors have a larger effect when people are alerted to an upcoming target relative to when people are not alerted to the target's presentation. However, does a concurrent working memory load moderate this interaction in multitasking experiments, and if so, does it magnify or suppress this effect? The current study (N = 40) finds that although a memory-load significantly slows reaction times it does not moderate the alerting-congruency interaction. Discussion focuses on theoretical and applied implications of this empirical result.