Modality matters: Three auditory conflict tasks to measure individual differences in attention control

被引:1
作者
Burgoyne, Alexander P. [1 ]
Seeburger, Dolly T. [1 ]
Engle, Randall W. [1 ]
机构
[1] Georgia Inst Technol, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA
关键词
Attention control; Executive functions; Sensory modalities; Individual differences; Reliability paradox; WORKING-MEMORY CAPACITY; SPATIAL ATTENTION; SPAN; INTERFERENCE; INTELLIGENCE; RELIABILITY; MECHANISMS; VALIDITY; PARADOX; ROLES;
D O I
10.3758/s13428-023-02328-6
中图分类号
B841 [心理学研究方法];
学科分类号
040201 ;
摘要
Early work on selective attention used auditory-based tasks, such as dichotic listening, to shed light on capacity limitations and individual differences in these limitations. Today, there is great interest in individual differences in attentional abilities, but the field has shifted towards visual-modality tasks. Furthermore, most conflict-based tests of attention control lack reliability due to low signal-to-noise ratios and the use of difference scores. Critically, it is unclear to what extent attention control generalizes across sensory modalities, and without reliable auditory-based tests, an answer to this question will remain elusive. To this end, we developed three auditory-based tests of attention control that use an adaptive response deadline (DL) to account for speed-accuracy trade-offs: Auditory Simon DL, Auditory Flanker DL, and Auditory Stroop DL. In a large sample (N = 316), we investigated the psychometric properties of the three auditory conflict tasks, tested whether attention control is better modeled as a unitary factor or modality-specific factors, and estimated the extent to which unique variance in modality-specific factors contributed incrementally to the prediction of dichotic listening and multitasking performance. Our analyses indicated that the auditory conflict tasks have strong psychometric properties and demonstrate convergent validity with visual tests of attention control. Auditory and visual attention control factors were highly correlated (r = .81)-even after controlling for perceptual processing speed (r = .75). Modality-specific attention control factors accounted for unique variance in modality-matched criterion measures, but the majority of the explained variance was modality-general. The results suggest an interplay between modality-general attention control and modality-specific processing.
引用
收藏
页码:5959 / 5985
页数:27
相关论文
共 81 条
[31]   PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SACCADES TO GOALS DEFINED BY INSTRUCTIONS [J].
HALLETT, PE .
VISION RESEARCH, 1978, 18 (10) :1279-1296
[32]   The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences [J].
Hedge, Craig ;
Powell, Georgina ;
Sumner, Petroc .
BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2018, 50 (03) :1166-1186
[33]   The speed-accuracy tradeoff: methodology, and behavior [J].
Heitz, Richard P. .
FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE, 2014, 8
[34]   Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives [J].
Hu, Li-tze ;
Bentler, Peter M. .
STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING-A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL, 1999, 6 (01) :1-55
[35]   Attentional control and the relatedness proportion effect in semantic priming [J].
Hutchison, Keith A. .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2007, 33 (04) :645-662
[36]   The Attention Network Test-Interaction (ANT-I): reliability and validity in healthy older adults [J].
Ishigami, Yoko ;
Eskes, Gail A. ;
Tyndall, Amanda V. ;
Longman, R. Stewart ;
Drogos, Lauren L. ;
Poulin, Marc J. .
EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH, 2016, 234 (03) :815-827
[37]  
James W., 1890, The principles of psychology, V1
[38]   Association of visual acuity with educational outcomes: a prospective cohort study [J].
Jan, Catherine ;
Li, Shi-Ming ;
Kang, Meng-Tian ;
Liu, Luoru ;
Li, He ;
Jin, Ling ;
Qin, Xuezheng ;
Congdon, Nathan ;
Wang, Ningli .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2019, 103 (11) :1666-1671
[39]   SIMPLE ADAPTIVE TESTING WITH THE WEIGHTED UP-DOWN METHOD [J].
KAERNBACH, C .
PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 1991, 49 (03) :227-229
[40]  
Kandel E., 2000, Principles of Neural Science