Don't stop me now: Hampered retrieval of action plans following interruptions

How can we retrieve action plans in working memory (WM) after being distracted or interrupted? The present EEG study investigated this question using a WM task in which a random sequence of single numbers (1-4 and 6-9) was presented. In a given trial, participants had to decide whether the number presented in the preceding trial was odd or even. Additionally, interfering stimuli were randomly presented in 25% of all trials, requiring the participants to either ignore a colored number (distraction) or respond to it (interruption) while maintaining the previously formed action plan in WM. Our results revealed a detrimental impact of interruptions on WM performance in trials after interrupting stimuli compared to trials without a preceding interference. This was reflected in decreased task accuracy and reduced stimulus- and response-locked P3b amplitudes potentially indicating a hampered reactivation of stimulus-response links. Moreover, decreased contralateral mu suppression prior to a given response highlighted an impaired response preparation following interruptions. Distractions, on the other hand, did not negatively affect task performance but were followed by faster responses in subsequent trials compared to trials without prior interference. This result pattern was supported by stronger contralateral mu suppression indicating a facilitated response preparation. Overall, these results suggest that action representations in WM are resistant to distractions but do suffer from interruptions that disrupt or interfere with their implementation. We thus propose that the possibility of adequately preparing for an upcoming response is essential for behavioral guidance in the presence of external interference.

Differential Effects of Interruptions and Distractions on Working Memory Processes in an ERP Study

Interruptions (interfering stimuli to respond to) and distractions (interfering stimuli to be ignored) have been shown to negatively impact performance, particularly in tasks requiring working memory (WM). This study investigated how these two types of external interference affect task performance and attentional and WM processes as indexed by specific event-related potentials (ERPs) of the EEG. A Continuous Number Task (CNT) was applied, in which participants had to either decide whether the current number (condition without WM load) or the sum of the current and the preceding number (condition with WM load) was odd or even while responding to interlaced single letters (interruptions) or ignoring them (distractions). Contrary to previous research, we did not find external interference to affect performance under WM load. Unexpectedly, our results rather show that performance was significantly improved in trials after distractions compared to before. This effect was reflected particularly in a significantly increased P3 mean amplitude indicating enhanced attentional reallocation to task-relevant stimuli. Interestingly, this P3 effect appeared independent of WM load and also following interruptions. This underpins the account of P3 amplitudes being modulated by the interval between two task-relevant stimuli rather than by overall task-difficulty. Moreover, a pronounced fronto-central and posterior slow wave following interference suggest more control resources to maintain task-relevant stimuli in WM independent of the preceding interfering stimulus. Our results thus suggest that the type and foreknowledge of external interference may modulate the amount of interference and may also facilitate resource preparation under WM load.

The impact of simulated MRI scanner background noise on visual attention processes as measured by the EEG

Environmental noise is known to affect personal well-being as well as cognitive processes. Besides daily life, environmental noise can also occur in experimental research settings, e.g. when being in a magnetic resonance scanner. Scanner background noise (SBN) might pose serious confounds for experimental findings, even when non-auditory settings are examined. In the current experiment we tested if SBN alters bottom-up and top-down related processes of selective visual attention mechanisms. Participants completed two blocks of a visual change detection task, one block in silence and one block under SBN exposure. SBN was found to decrease accuracy in measures of visual attention. This effect was modulated by the temporal occurrence of SBN. When SBN was encountered in the first block, it prevented a significant improvement of accuracy in the second block. When SBN appeared in the second block, it significantly decreased accuracy. Neurophysiological findings showed a strong frontal positivity shift only when SBN was present in the first block, suggesting an inhibitory process to counteract the interfering SBN. Common correlates of both top-down and bottom-up processes of selective visual attention were not specifically affected by SBN exposure. Further research appears necessary to entirely rule out confounds of SBN in assessing visual attention.