↓ Skip to main content

Task-Irrelevant Novel Sounds have Antithetical Effects on Visual Target Processing in Young and Old Adults

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Task-Irrelevant Novel Sounds have Antithetical Effects on Visual Target Processing in Young and Old Adults
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00348
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erich S. Tusch, Nicole C. Feng, Phillip J. Holcomb, Kirk R. Daffner

Abstract

In young adults, primary visual task processing can be either enhanced or disrupted by novel auditory stimuli preceding target events, depending on task demands. Little is known about this phenomenon in older individuals, who, in general, are more susceptible to distraction. In the current study, age-related differences in the electrophysiological effects of task-irrelevant auditory stimuli on visual target processing were examined. Under both low and high primary task loads, the categorization/updating process in response to visual targets preceded by auditory novels, as indexed by the target P3 component, was enhanced in young, but diminished in old adults. In both age groups, the alerting/orienting response to novel auditory stimuli, as measured by the P3a, was smaller under high task load, whereas redirecting attention to the visual task after a novel auditory event, as indexed by the reorienting negativity (RON), tended to be augmented under high task load. Old subjects generated a smaller P3a and RON. We conclude that task irrelevant novel auditory stimuli have the opposite effect on the processing of visual targets in young and old adults. This finding may help explain age-related increases in the disruption of primary task activity by irrelevant, but salient auditory events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 26%
Neuroscience 5 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,451,991
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#4,340
of 4,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,643
of 328,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#93
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,843 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.