Reaction Time Effects of Semantically-Related and

Unrelated Visual and Auditory Distraction in Younger and

Older Adults

Leonard L. LaPointe, PhD 1 Julie A.G. Stierwalt, PhD 1

Adrienne B. Hancock, PhD 2Rachel Goff, BA 1

Gary R. Heald, PhD 1Selena Snowden, AuD1

1 Dept of Communication Disorders, Florida State University andTMH-FSU Neurolinguistic-Neurocognitive Research Center, Tallahassee

2 Department of Speech and Hearing ScienceGeorge Washington University, Washington DC

A Sign of the Times

The Problem Burning Questions

Few studies of the effects of semantic distraction on linguistic processing in aphasia or people without aphasia

Does an ambient background of semantic auditory distraction facilitate or interfere with ongoing linguistic processing?

Modality effects of semantic ambient background are unclear

Does visual ambient semantic distraction differ from auditory?

Are there age effects related to semantic distractibility?

Purpose

The primary purpose: To determine the effects of

distraction,semantic relatednessvisual & auditory

on a picture identification task in younger and older adults

Why is this Important?

Examining the parameters of interference, competition, and distraction effects on linguistic and cognitive processing may help us understand how the brain filters, selects, and allocates resources

Multi-tasking (aka “giga-tasking”) is pervasive and increasing, threatening our sanity and safety

Compromised safety may be related to attentional resource depletion and ambient distraction

Risk of falls in the elderlyCell phone driving accidentsMedical errors and industrial accidents

Multi-Tasking

Within-Subject Variables

Semantic CategorySportsVegetables

Visual RelatednessSemantically relatedSemantically unrelated

Auditory RelatednessQuietSemantically relatedSemantically unrelatedBursts of white noise

Where Do We Process Vegetables?

Broccoli’s Area? Maybe. Maybe not.

(thanks to JCR)

Semantically RELATED Visual

Participants heard “Point to Corn” and then saw these pictures

Semantically UNRELATED Visual

Participants heard “Point to corn” and then saw these pictures.

AUDITORY Conditions

1. Semantically related example:Category: Vegetables Target: Corn Participant heard: “Beans…Squash…etc.”*

2. Semantically unrelated Category: Sports

Participant heard: “Hammer… Bucket…etc.”*

3. Quiet, no distraction

4. Bursts of white noise, non-linguistic interruption

*No target items were used as auditory distracters

Comparison of Semantic CATEGORIES

Item analysis compared mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation (a ratio of sd to mean)

RTs for vegetable targets were always shortest, regardless of visual or auditory distraction condition

but differences between categories did not reach statistical significance (and were therefore pooled)

Based on data from a previous study, the category Birdswas omitted because of item ambiguity and poor participant knowledge of avian categories…we believe the entire category migrated

Procedures (Auditory)

All participants passed a hearing screening at 25dB

Corrective hearing amplification or corrective lenses were allowed

Auditory ambient distracters were presented at 60dB SL

Design Overview

Visual Arrays (4

pictures)

TargetCategor

y

4 Auditory Distraction LevelsQuiet Semantically

RELATED- Auditory

Semantically UNRELATED - Auditory

Bursts of white noise

Semantically- Related

(Target with 3 RELATED Foils)

1. Sports

2. Veggies

Semantically UNRELATED- visually

(Target with 3 UNRELATED foils)

1. Veggies

2. Sports

Methods and Procedures

17 healthy, young adults (mean age 20.1 yrs)

16 healthy, older adults (mean age 75 yrs)

Participants were instructed to “point” to one of four displayed pictures using a 4-button keypad

Task requirements remained constant; categories and visual and auditory

distractions were manipulated

Means and (SDs) for Picture Identification Reaction Times for Younger and Older Adults Across All Conditions

Group

VisualSem Related

VisualSem Unrelat

Aud Quiet

Aud Sem Related

AudSem Unrelat

AudWhiteNoise

Younger

Older

960

(358)

715

(233)

850

(294)

880

(319)

886

(306)

734

(264)

1327

(357)

1046

(426)

1172

(527)

1332

(357)

1172

(494)

1071

(351)

Picture Identification Reaction TimeOlder Adults vs. Younger AdultsAcross Conditions of No Distraction, Semantically-Related Distraction, Semantically-Unrelated Distraction, and Bursts of White Noise

7341071

8861172

8801332

8501172

0 500 1000 1500

Reaction Time in Milliseconds (Ms)

WhiteNoise

SemUnrel

Sem Rel

No Distr

Older Adults

Younger Adults

*Sig t= 3.72, p<.001 across

groups for all modalities, conditions

** Sig t= 3.51, p<.01 within

older group for Quiet vs. Sem Rel and for Sem Rel vs. Sem Unrel; Sem Rel vs. White Noise

Reaction Times (RT) for Picture Identification for Young and Older Adults by Auditory Condition (Another View)

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

Young Old

No Dist

Sem Rel

Sem Unrel

White Noise

RT

in

Ms

Picture Identification Reaction Time (Ms)Older Adults vs. Younger Adults Across Conditions

(Quiet; Sem Related; Sem Unrel; White Noise)

No Distr Sem Rel Sem UnrelWhite Noise

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

Younger Adults

Older Adults

Conclusions

Performance in the presence of distraction is determined by many factors, including the linguistic context or semantic relatedness of the distraction and the modality of the distraction

In the group of healthy young people, picture identification was slowed by semantically related visual distraction, but NOT by ambient auditory distraction

Across all conditions, older adults had significantly longer reaction times than younger participants

This finding extended across semantic relatedness as well as across all conditions of distraction

Few errors were made; accuracy was not a factor that needed to be analyzed

Cognitive Resource Allocation: A Vegetable Garden of

Interpretations

Auditory Distraction Findings: Resource allocation theory suggests that perhaps younger adults decided the ambient words were not important or sufficiently distracting to allocate cognitive resource or controlled processing to the ambient auditory stimuli

Our data supports this hypothesis because neither related nor unrelated auditory word conditions were different than the quiet condition.

Visual Distraction Findings: Participants were required, however, to look at the pictures when making a selection and therefore could not avoid semantic relatedness effects by ignoring the visual stimuli

(In other words, in this paradigm participants could have ignored auditory, but not visual distraction)

Older vs. Younger Participants

For older adults, however, it is a different ballgame…or garden

Our findings support and extend those of Wingfield, Tun, et al that there are important age effects to consider in linguistic processing during distraction or dual tasks

Our findings support as well that the type of distracter is important

Meaningful distracters impaired performance more in previous studiesSemantic-relatedness emerges as another parameter of distraction that affects linguistic processing in older but not younger adults

Discussion

But why did participants get faster during bursts of white noise?

The bursts of white noise were included to provide an interruption without a linguistic load. Possibly, participants found the static-like white noise sound annoying and it actually became an incentive to hurry and make a selection so that the noise would stop

In Carpenterian fashion, we’ve only just begun. Much more research is needed to clarify the effects of interference, competition, or distraction on linguistic and cognitive processing

Preliminary data suggest persons with aphasia have greater difficulty than healthy elderly. More on that later…

ReferencesBates E., Marangolo P., Pizzamiglio L., & Dick F. Linguistic and nonlinguistic priming in

aphasia. Brain and Language, 76 (1), 62.Baum, S.R. (1997). Phonological, semantic, and mediated priming in aphasia. Brain

and Language, 60(3), 347.Crutch, S.J. & Warrington, E.K. (2003). The organization of semantic memory: Evidence

from semantic refractory access dysphasia. Brain and Language, 87, 81.Damian, M.F., & Bowers, J.S. (2003). Locus of semantic interference in picture-word

interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 10 (1), 111.Damian, M.F., Vigliocco, G., & Levelt, W.J. (2001) Effects of semantic context in the

naming of pictures and words. Cognition, 81 (3), 77.LaPointe, L. L. & Erickson, R.J., (1991). Auditory vigilance during divided task attention

in aphasic individuals. Aphasiology, 5 (6), 511.LeCompte, Neely, & Wilson (1997). Irrelevant speech and irrelevant tones: the relative

importance of speech to the irrelevant speech effect. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 23(2), 472.

McNeil, M. Roy, Doyle, P. J., Hula, W. Hoop, Rubitinsky, H.J., Fossett, Hot Water, and Matthews, C.T. Using resource allocation theory and dual-task methods to increase the sensitivity of assessment in aphasia. Aphasiology, 18(5-7), 2004, 521.

Murray, L. L. , Holland, A.L., & Beeson, P.M. (1997). Auditory processing in individuals with mild aphasia: A study of resource allocation. Journal of Speech, Language, Hearing Research, 40 (4), 792.

Renvall, K., Laine, M., Laakso, M. & Martin, N. (2003). Anomia rehabilitation with contextual priming: A case study. Aphasiology, 17, 305.

Wingfield, A., Tun, P.A., Koh, C.K., & Rosen, M.J. (1999). Regaining lost time: Adult aging and the effect of time restoration on recall of time-compressed speech. Psychology and Aging, 14: 380.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the participants who made this study possible

Many thanks to the good sports and to the vegetables who volunteered their time to be pictured in this study