PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

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.

Back

342

Title *

No reliable effect of task-irrelevant cross-modal statistical regularities on distractor suppressionuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

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"

Year *

2023

Picture

Abstract *

<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>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

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://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

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://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

attention, attention capture, distractor suppression, cross-modal, statistical regularities

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Humanities, Life Sciences, Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

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

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2022-11-21 15:30:30

Recommender

Zoltan Dienes

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY