PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 6232339

Expectancy and dual-task interference.

Abstract

This research deals with the relationship between expectancy and attention. In two experiments, expectancy concerning the modality of a probe stimulus was manipulated. In Experiment 1, the frequencies of probes in auditory and visual modalities were varied. In Experiment 2, a cue prior to each trial indicated the relative probabilities of the two types of probes. In both experiments, expectancy effects were observed in a single-task condition during which the subject's only task was to respond to the probes and in a dual-task condition in which probes were inserted in the study phase of a pattern recognition task. If maintaining an expectancy requires attention, then diverting attention from the probe task to the pattern recognition task should have attentuated the effects of expectancy. In fact, the pattern recognition task did not alter frequency effects but did significantly reduce cueing effects. We conclude that expectancy as determined by frequency results from automatic activation, whereas expectancy as determined by cueing involves attention.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Lansman, S Farr, E Hunt. 1984. Expectancy and dual-task interference.. https://doi.org/10.1037/%2F0096-1523.10.2.195

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Do self-reports of perceptual anomalies reflect gating deficits in schizophrenia patients?

Jin and colleagues presented an innovative study examining P50 suppression and patients' self-reported perceptual anomalies as two related operational measures of sensory gating deficits in schizophrenia patients. They found that those schizophrenia patients who endorsed experiences of sensory inundation had normal levels of P50 suppression, whereas patients who tended to endorse fewer complaints of perceptual anomalies had P50 suppression deficits. Jin et al's finding challenges the common belief that P50 suppression deficits are associated with cognitive and sensory anomalies reflecting poor gating in schizophrenia patients. This article comments on how the dissociation between phenomenological experiences of gating disturbances and P50 suppression might be explained by the limits of self-report in schizophrenia patients who have deficient insight and self-awareness. We hypothesize that the self-reported inability to screen out irrelevant stimuli reflects a voluntary, controlled process that is different from the involuntary, automatic process measured by P50 suppression.

Attention