Cited by 43Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMultisensory perception and integrationVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Momentary reductions of attention permit greater processing of irrelevant stimuli

Open access
Weissman, D.H., Warner, L.M., Woldorff, M.G.·2009·NeuroImage

Abstract

Momentary reductions of attention can have extremely adverse outcomes, but it remains unclear whether increased distraction from irrelevant stimuli contributes to such outcomes. To investigate this hypothesis, we examined trial-by-trial relationships between brain activity and response time in twenty healthy adults while they performed a cross-modal selective attention task. In each trial, participants identified a relevant visual letter while ignoring an irrelevant auditory letter, which was mapped either to the same response as the visual letter (congruent trials) or to a different response (incongruent trials). As predicted, reductions of attention (i.e., increases of response time) were associated not only with decreased activity in sensory regions that processed the relevant visual stimuli, suggesting a failure to enhance the processing of those stimuli, but also with increased activity in sensory regions that processed the irrelevant auditory stimuli, suggesting a failure to suppress the processing of those stimuli. Reductions of attention were also linked to larger increases of activity in incongruent than in congruent trials in anterior cingulate regions that detect response conflict, suggesting that failing to suppress the sensory processing of the irrelevant auditory stimuli during attentional reductions allowed those stimuli to more readily activate conflicting responses in incongruent trials. These findings indicate that heightened levels of distraction during momentary reductions of attention likely stem, at least in part, from increased processing of irrelevant stimuli.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.081

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Increased activity in the posterior cingulate, precuneus, and middle temporal gyrus occurs at stimulus presentation during long reaction time trials.

    “Another intriguing RTV-related functional imaging finding is increased activity in the posterior cingulate, precuneus, and middle temporal gyrus at the time of stimulus presentation during long RT trials [64].”

    From Reaction Time Variability in ADHD: A Review (2012) · cites this paper as [64]

  • In an event-related design, intermittent long reaction times were associated with decreased frontal cortex activity prior to stimulus presentation.

    “However, using an eventrelated design, Weissman et al. [64] did examine brain activation around long RTs and found that instances of intermittent long RTs were associated with decreased activity in the frontal cortex prior to stimulus presentation.”

    From Reaction Time Variability in ADHD: A Review (2012) · cites this paper as [64]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weissman, D. H., Warner, L. M., & Woldorff, M. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Weissman, D.H.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-11
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
609-615
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1991734615
Cited by
43
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1r03da021345-01)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (1R03DA021345-01, R03 DA021345)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS051048)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
distraction, reaction time (psychology), response conflict, anterior cingulate cortex
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Attention, Auditory Perception, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Task Performance and Analysis, Visual Perception, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review