Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. I. Simple and choice reaction tasks.

We studied several effects of dividing attention between visual and acoustic inputs on different processing stages. Simple and choice responses were required to single letter stimuli. RTs and P300 latencies were delayed for divided attention (variable stimulus modality) as compared to focused attention (constant stimulus modality). In all but one condition, RT and P300 delays were similar. The exception was choice tasks to auditory stimuli, in which the RT delay was far larger than the P300 delay. Since the amplitude of the late ERP was larger in choice tasks than in simple tasks, the differences between the ERPs of choice and simple tasks were computed. They revealed that an additional late positive wave ("P-CR") occurred in all choice ERPs. In the divided attention condition the auditory (but not the visual) P-CR showed a longer delay compared to focused attention. We interpret the P-CR to be time-related to the response selection process. Our results suggest that the division of attention causes a slight impairment of stimulus evaluation (shown in P300 latency) and, after auditory stimuli only, a strong impairment of response selection (shown in P-CR latency). We therefore conclude that the observed RT effects are due to a bias of processing resources towards the visual modality, which mainly affects response selection. The results are in accordance with the theory of visual dominance.

[1]  R. Klein.  Attention and visual dominance: a chronometric analysis. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  T. Gasser,et al.  Correction of EOG artifacts in event-related potentials of the EEG: aspects of reliability and validity. , 1982, Psychophysiology.

[3]  R. Näätänen,et al.  Stimulus deviance and evoked potentials , 1982, Biological Psychology.

[4]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  R. Johnson.  A triarchic model of P300 amplitude. , 1986, Psychophysiology.

[6]  L. Karlin,et al.  Auditory evoked potentials, motor potentials and reaction time. , 1971, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[7]  B. Renault,et al.  Correct and incorrect responses in a choice reaction time task and the endogenous components of the evoked potential. , 1980, Progress in brain research.

[8]  J. Polich,et al.  Comparison of P300 from a passive tone sequence paradigm and an active discrimination task. , 1987, Psychophysiology.

[9]  H G Vaughan,et al.  Manipulation of event-related potential manifestations of information processing stages. , 1982, Science.

[10]  J. Ford,et al.  Event-related potentials recorded from young and old adults during a memory retrieval task. , 1979, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[11]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Similarities and differences among the P3 waves to detected signals in three modalities. , 1980, Psychophysiology.

[12]  E. Donchin,et al.  On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. , 1984, Psychophysiology.

[13]  R. Parasuraman,et al.  Auditory evoked potentials and divided attention. , 1978, Psychophysiology.

[14]  H G Vaughan,et al.  Topography of visual event-related potentials during geometric and phonetic discriminations. , 1986, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[15]  G. McCarthy,et al.  Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. , 1977, Science.

[16]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Endogenous brain potentials associated with selective auditory attention. , 1980, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[17]  S A Hillyard,et al.  P3 waves to the discrimination of targets in homogeneous and heterogeneous stimulus sequences. , 1977, Psychophysiology.

[18]  F. Colavita.  Human sensory dominance , 1974 .

[19]  B Renault,et al.  Onset and offset of brain events as indices of mental chronometry. , 1982, Science.

[20]  R. Ragot,et al.  Perceptual and motor space representation: an event-related potential study. , 1984, Psychophysiology.

[21]  H. Vaughan,et al.  Topographic analysis of auditory event-related potentials associated with acoustic and semantic processing. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[22]  W H Teichner,et al.  Laws of visual choice reaction time. , 1974, Psychological review.

[23]  Frank Rösier,et al.  2 Endogenous Er“Ps” and Cognition: Probes, Prospects, and Pitfalls in Matching Pieces of the Mind-Body Puzzle , 1983 .

[24]  D Friedman,et al.  A brain event related to the making of a sensory discrimination. , 1979, Science.

[25]  J Debecker,et al.  Wave form and neural mechanism of the decision P350 elicited without pre-stimulus CNV or readiness potential in random sequences of near-threshold auditory clicks and finger stimuli. , 1979, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[26]  M. Posner,et al.  Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. , 1976, Psychological review.

[27]  B. Kopell,et al.  The Stroop effect: brain potentials localize the source of interference. , 1981, Science.

[28]  F Rösler,et al.  Event-related brain potentials in a stimulus-discrimination learning paradigm. , 1981, Psychophysiology.

[29]  A. Sanders,et al.  Neither context updating nor context closure corresponds closely to human performance concepts , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[30]  Ray Johnson.  For Distinguished Early Career Contribution to Psychophysiology: Award Address, 1985 , 1986 .

[31]  W. Ritter,et al.  The scalp topography of potentials in auditory and visual discrimination tasks. , 1977, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.