Surprise leads to noisier perceptual decisions

Surprising events in the environment can impair task performance. This might be due to complete distraction, leading to lapses during which performance is reduced to guessing. Alternatively, unpredictability might cause a graded withdrawal of perceptual resources from the task at hand and thereby reduce sensitivity. Here we attempt to distinguish between these two mechanisms. Listeners performed a novel auditory pitch—duration discrimination, where stimulus loudness changed occasionally and incidentally to the task. Responses were slower and less accurate in the surprising condition, where loudness changed unpredictably, than in the predictable condition, where the loudness was held constant. By explicitly modelling both lapses and changes in sensitivity, we found that unpredictable changes diminished sensitivity but did not increase the rate of lapses. These findings suggest that background environmental uncertainty can disrupt goal-directed behaviour. This graded processing strategy might be adaptive in potentially threatening contexts, and reflect a flexible system for automatic allocation of perceptual resources.

[1]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  J. Theeuwes Perceptual selectivity for color and form , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  P. Andrés,et al.  The involuntary capture of attention by sound: novelty and postnovelty distraction in young and older adults. , 2010, Experimental psychology.

[4]  N. Lavie,et al.  Overriding auditory attentional capture , 2007, Perception & Psychophysics.

[5]  M. Sahani,et al.  Implicit knowledge of visual uncertainty guides decisions with asymmetric outcomes. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[6]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[7]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

[8]  Nilli Lavie,et al.  Auditory attentional capture: effects of singleton distractor sounds. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  B. Scharf,et al.  Auditory attention: the psychoacoustical approach , 1998 .

[11]  Geraint Rees,et al.  Brain mechanisms mediating auditory attentional capture in humans. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[12]  J. Duncan Selective attention and the organization of visual information. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  I. Winkler,et al.  Top-down control over involuntary attention switching in the auditory modality , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  H. Strasburger,et al.  Fitting the psychometric function , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  P. Vuilleumier,et al.  How brains beware: neural mechanisms of emotional attention , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  J. Duncan Selective attention and the organization of visual information , 1984 .

[17]  W A Yost,et al.  The perceptual tone/noise ratio of merged iterated rippled noises. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  I. Nelken,et al.  Processing of low-probability sounds by cortical neurons , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[19]  W. Yost Pitch of iterated rippled noise. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  János Horváth,et al.  Distraction in a continuous-stimulation detection task , 2010, Biological Psychology.

[21]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Bayesian surprise attracts human attention , 2005, Vision Research.

[22]  E. Schröger,et al.  Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of task-irrelevant sound change: a new distraction paradigm. , 1998, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.