4.5 Article

Active Listening Delays Attentional Disengagement and Saccadic Eye Movements

期刊

PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 1021-1027

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1310-z

关键词

Visual attention; Attentional disengagement; Cognitive load; Dual task; Mental workload; Distracted driving

资金

  1. Toyota Collaborative Safety Research Center (CSRC), Detroit, Michigan
  2. National Science Foundation [BCS 11-51209]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Successful goal-directed visual behavior depends on efficient disengagement of attention. Attention must be withdrawn from its current focus before being redeployed to a new object or internal process. Previous research has demonstrated that occupying cognitive processes with a secondary cellular phone conversation impairs attentional functioning and driving behavior. For example, attentional processing is significantly impacted by concurrent cell phone use, resulting in decreased explicit memory for on-road information. Here, we examined the impact of a critical component of cell-phone use-active listening-on the effectiveness of attentional disengagement. In the gap task-a saccadic manipulation of attentional disengagement-we measured saccade latencies while participants performed a secondary active listening task. Saccadic latencies significantly increased under an active listening load only when attention needed to be disengaged, indicating that active listening delays a disengagement operation. Simple dual-task interference did not account for the observed results. Rather, active cognitive engagement is required for measurable disengagement slowing to be observed. These results have implications for investigations of attention, gaze behavior, and distracted driving. Secondary tasks such as active listening or cell-phone conversations can have wide-ranging impacts on cognitive functioning, potentially impairing relatively elementary operations of attentional function, including disengagement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据