Submit a report

Announcements

Please note: To accommodate reviewer and recommender holiday schedules, we will be closed to submissions from 1st July — 1st September. During this time, reviewers will be able to submit reviews and recommenders will issue decisions, but no new or revised submissions will be made by authors. The one exception to this rule is that authors using the scheduled track who submit their initial Stage 1 snapshot prior to 1st July can choose a date within the shutdown period to submit their full Stage 1 manuscript.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.


 

342

No reliable effect of task-irrelevant cross-modal statistical regularities on distractor suppressionuse asterix (*) to get italics
Kishore Kumar Jagini, Meera Mary SunnyPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2023
<p>Our sensory systems are known to extract and utilize statistical regularities in sensory inputs across space and time for efficient perceptual processing. Past research has shown that participants can utilize statistical regularities of target and distractor stimuli independently within a modality either to enhance the target or to suppress the distractor processing. Utilizing statistical regularities of task-irrelevant stimuli across different modalities also enhances target processing. However, it is not known whether distractor processing can also be suppressed by utilizing statistical regularities of task-irrelevant stimulus of different modalities. In the present study, we investigated whether the spatial (Experiment 1) and non-spatial (Experiment 2) statistical regularities of task-irrelevant auditory stimulus could suppress the salient visual distractor. We used an additional singleton visual search task with two high-probability colour singleton distractor locations. Critically, the spatial location of the high-probability distractor was either predictive (valid trials) or unpredictive (invalid trials) based on the statistical regularities of the task-irrelevant auditory stimulus. The results replicated earlier findings of distractor suppression at high-probability locations compared to the locations where distractors appear with lower probability. However, the results did not show any RT advantage for valid distractor location trials as compared with invalid distractor location trials in both experiments. When tested on whether participants can express awareness of the relationship between specific auditory stimulus and the distractor location, they showed explicit awareness only in Experiment 1. However, an exploratory analysis suggested a possibility of response biases at the awareness testing phase of Experiment 1. Overall, results indicate that irrespective of awareness of the relationship between auditory stimulus and distractor location regularities, there was no reliable influence of task-irrelevant auditory stimulus regularities on distractor suppression.</p>
You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
attention, attention capture, distractor suppression, cross-modal, statistical regularities
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Humanities, Life Sciences, Social sciences
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]
2022-11-21 15:30:30
Zoltan Dienes