Fractionating distraction: how past- and future-relevant distractors influence integrated decisions

Author:

Barnes LydiaORCID,Rangelov DraganORCID,Mattingley Jason B.,Woolgar Alexandra

Abstract

AbstractMany everyday tasks require us to integrate information from multiple steps to make a decision. Dominant accounts of flexible cognition suggest that we are able to navigate such complex tasks by attending to each step in turn, yet few studies measure how we direct our attention to immediate and future task steps. Here, we used a two-step task to test whether participants are sensitive to information that is currently irrelevant, but will be relevant in a future task step. Participants viewed two displays in sequence, each containing two superimposed moving dot clouds of different colours. Participants attended to one cued target colour in each display and reported the average direction of the two target dot clouds. In a subset of trials, we presented a “decoy” distractor: the second target colour appeared as the distractor in the first display. We regressed behavioural responses on the dot clouds’ motion directions to track how this future-relevant “decoy” distractor influenced participants’ reporting of the average target direction. We compared the influence of decoy distractors to never-relevant, recently relevant, and globally relevant distractor baselines. Across four experiments, we found that responses reflected what was immediately relevant, as well as the broader historical relevance of the distractors. However, relevance for a future task step did not reliably influence attention. We propose that attention in multi-step tasks is shaped by what has been relevant in the current setting, and by the immediate demands of each task step.Public SignificanceOur everyday functioning depends on our ability to piece together information to make coherent decisions. Understanding how we efficiently select and integrate goal-relevant information is critical if we wish to anticipate how decision-making can go wrong, whether because of fatigue, mental load, or illness. This study shows that decisions in multi-step tasks reflect two distinct processes: narrow focus on what is relevant in each step, alongside broader awareness of what has been relevant in this setting.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3