4.1 Article

Telephone Conversations Affect the Executive but Not the Alerting or Orienting Network

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 249-261

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/xap0000435

Keywords

mobile phone conversation; dual-task; ANT; attention; executive control

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous research has shown that talking on a mobile phone impairs visual attention. This study investigated how phone conversations affect different attentional networks. The findings suggest that holding a conversation delays response time and reduces the amount of information that can be processed, particularly in the executive attentional network.
Previous work has shown that talking on a mobile phone leads to an impairment of visual attention. Gunnell et al. (2020) investigated the locus of these dual-task impairments and found that although phone conversations led to cognitive delays in response times, other mechanisms underlying particular selective attention tasks were unaffected. Here, we investigated which attentional networks, if any, were impaired by having a phone conversation. We used the attentional network task (ANT) to evaluate performance of the alerting, orienting, and executive attentional networks, both in conditions where people were engaged in a conversation and where they were silent. Two experiments showed that there was a robust delay in response across all three networks. However, at the individual network level, holding a conversation did not influence the size of the alerting or orienting effects but it did reduce the size of the conflict effect within the executive network. The findings suggest that holding a conversation can reduce the overall speed of responding and, via its influence on the executive network, can reduce the amount of information that can be processed from the environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available