Sign in
NeuroscienceJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance
Peer-reviewed journal article

Fractionating distraction: How past- and future-relevant distractors influence integrated decisions

Lydia BarnesiD, Dragan RangeloviD, Jason B. MattingleyiD, Alexandra WoolgariD

Abstract

Many everyday tasks require us to integrate information from multiple steps to make a decision. Dominant accounts of flexible cognition suggest that we are able to navigate such complex tasks by attending to each step in turn, yet few studies measure how we direct our attention to immediate and future task steps. Here, we used a two-step task to test whether participants are sensitive to information that is currently irrelevant, but will be relevant in a future task step. Participants viewed two displays in sequence, each containing two superimposed moving dot clouds of different colours. Participants attended to one cued target colour in each display and reported the average direction of the two target dot clouds. In a subset of trials, we presented a "decoy" distractor: the second target colour appeared as the distractor in the first display. We regressed behavioural responses on the dot clouds motion directions to track how this future-relevant "decoy" distractor influenced participants reporting of the average target direction. We compared the influence of decoy distractors to never-relevant, recently relevant, and globally relevant distractor baselines. Across four experiments, we found that responses reflected what was immediately relevant, as well as the broader historical relevance of the distractors. However, relevance for a future task step did not reliably influence attention. We propose that attention in multi-step tasks is shaped by what has been relevant in the current setting, and by the immediate demands of each task step. Public SignificanceOur everyday functioning depends on our ability to piece together information to make coherent decisions. Understanding how we efficiently select and integrate goal-relevant information is critical if we wish to anticipate how decision-making can go wrong, whether because of fatigue, mental load, or illness. This study shows that decisions in multi-step tasks reflect two distinct processes: narrow focus on what is relevant in each step, alongside broader awareness of what has been relevant in this setting.

PDFDOI

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers
Citations
3
FWCI
0.45
Field percentile
top 43%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISShenhav '18Rangelov '20Ritz '23Wong '24Zylberberg '26Parvin '24
69% semantic matchNeuroscience
Amitai Shenhav, Mark A. Straccia, Sebastian Musslick+2 more·Nature Communications·Jun 21, 2018· 59 citations