ライフサイエンスコーパス: distractor

1 t) was orthogonal to the remaining bars (the distractors).

2 f the attended feature while suppressing the distractor.

3 t a feature somewhere between the target and distractor.

4 ce of salient visual targets surrounded by a distractor.

5 istractor, while it increased when CS- was a distractor.

6 s reduction depending on the variance of the distractor.

7 ts from the interruption of rehearsal by the distractor.

8 row while ignoring a task-irrelevant salient distractor.

9 ount the activity of neurons that prefer the distractor.

10 gets in the face of task-irrelevant, salient distractors.

11 conflict between one's actions and external distractors.

12 n neural discriminability between target and distractors.

13 mechanisms following recent encounters with distractors.

14 as implemented to rapidly discount potential distractors.

15 h water-associated, or control unconditioned distractors.

16 etect two targets (T1 and T2) in a stream of distractors.

17 perceptual interactions between targets and distractors.

18 fects on retinotopic responses to target and distractors.

19 tion on a target stimulus in the presence of distractors.

20 responses in the presence versus absence of distractors.

21 in faster task performance in the context of distractors.

22 uences of adding different types of auditory distractors.

23 efined target while trying to ignore salient distractors.

24 in regulating the conflict between goals and distractors.

25 iding selection and segregation amid similar distractors.

26 tentional interference from strongly salient distractors.

27 in goal-directed action than weakly salient distractors.

28 ditive modulation of responses to targets by distractors.

29 acity even in the absence of task-irrelevant distractors.

30 VWM representations rather than filtering of distractors.

31 and, in particular, the processing of visual distractors.

32 tones delivered on-beat and interleaved with distractors.

33 res, when a target stimulus is surrounded by distractors.

34 onse for detecting targets among an array of distractors.

35 arch tasks, observers look for targets among distractors.

36 , in which those colors served as irrelevant distractors.

37 olvement in the suppression of to-be-ignored distractors.

38 ne of five identical targets (Ts) among five distractors.

39 t interference from task-irrelevant, salient distractors.

40 servers search for two colored targets among distractors.

41 ased to follow the suggestions of irrelevant distractors.

42 and are more disruptive than weakly salient distractors [7, 8].

43 previous findings, threat of shock improved distractor accuracy and slowed target reaction time on o

44 ifficulty distinguishing target stimuli from distractors after consuming the high-saturated-fat meal

45 nced responses to target stimuli relative to distractors, allowing for greater attentional selection

46 ong distractors, paralleled by decreased pre-distractor alpha/beta power in the left superior tempora

47 ion of roles (a facilitator, an informant, a distractor, an empathiser, a safeguarder) that legitimis

48 when attention had to be disengaged from the distractor and reoriented to the target location.

49 hat sometimes match the identity of a nearby distractor and sometimes match a combination of target a

50 Behavioral findings demonstrated that both distractor and target location learning resulted in more

51 med a modified Eriksen flanker task in which distractors and targets flickered within (10 Hz) or outs

52 hile two other directions occurred only with distractors and, thus, were unrelated to reinforcement.

53 arched a foveal array of colored targets and distractors, and ignored irrelevant objects in the perip

54 e others and the crows had to avoid either a distractor apparatus containing a non-functional tool or

55 that differs in saturation or lightness from distractors are much less selective than attention filte

56 et selection relative to when weakly salient distractors are present.

57 hat targets are detected by default, whereas distractors are processed in considerable depth.

58 perceptual load on visual cortex response to distractors are well established and various phenomena o

59 hat the brain may no longer process expected distractors as distractors, once it has learned they can

60 tion by briefly presenting a task-irrelevant distractor at different times during the saccade sequenc

61 itions, either in the absence or presence of distractor auditory tones.

62 target bars were compared with responses to distractor bars in the receptive field (RF).

63 when a target was visually more complex than distractors but could be captured by a memory chunk.

64 of objects and report either the target or a distractor, but when continuous features are used (e.g.

65 cted distractors may no longer be considered distractors by the brain once it has learned that they c

66 lations, maintaining a memory while ignoring distractors by the theta, rapid memory clearance by the

67 The value of a third potential option or distractor can alter the way in which decisions are made

68 were presented alongside images of non-food distractors (cars).

69 raining approach that adaptively manipulated distractor challenge.

70 we investigated how learning about upcoming distractors changes distractor processing and directly c

71 The inability to ignore irrelevant distractors characterizes a spectrum of human attentiona

72 performing a visual-search task and ignoring distractor checkerboards in the periphery.

73 outside the array could match the target or distractor color within the array, or otherwise possesse

74 Distractor-colored and neutral objects evoked equivalent

75 e array evoked enhanced activity relative to distractor-colored and neutral objects.

76 onse times on trials with cocaine-associated distractors compared with trials with water-associated,

77 t that spatiotopic representations of target-distractor competition are crucial for successful intera

78 ons, the orbitofrontal cortex differentiated distractor condition by the proportion of single-units a

79 d the orientation of a target, under several distractor conditions, by adjusting an identical foveal

80 nt improves detection of a target flanked by distractors, consistent with sharpened visuospatial perc

81 stractors improves when the configuration of distractors consistently cues the target's location acro

82 ch to the question of whether a patch of 0s (distractors) contains a 1 (target).

83 ained colours and orientations, presenting a distractor created bias in VWM representation depending

84 in both blocked and flexible conditions, but distractor cueing was only effective in the blocked vers

85 eneous and their structure depends on target-distractor distance.

86 about target orientation in the presence of distractors, due both to divisive and additive modulatio

87 hlear transmission aids in ignoring auditory distractors during attention.

88 To assess the processing of distractors during sensory-perceptual phases we applied

89 improves processing of a visual target among distractors, effects that are notably similar to those o

90 signals [7-10], confusion between target and distractor elements [11, 12], and a limited resolution o

91 ) with the difference between the target and distractor eLFP responses: the more the target response

92 ned attention cues were activated by salient distractor events, suggesting they contribute to suppres

93 the amplitude difference between target- and distractor-evoked activity predicts discrimination perfo

94 Crucially, distractor-evoked visual potentials (i.e., posterior N1)

95 pulated to determine how spatial and feature distractor expectations are neurally implemented and red

96 By contrast, distractor expectations did not change preparatory spati

97 Spatial distractor expectations did not induce changes in prepar

98 Instead, distractor expectations reduced distractor-specific proc

99 ficantly improved with the presentation of a distractor face during the delay.

100 ch that greater learning for low-reliability distractors facilitated transfer.

101 ct of attention depends on the tuning to the distractor feature as well.

102 ended feature, but also on the tuning to the distractor feature.

103 We find that expected distractor features could not only be decoded pre-stimul

104 Certain distractor features may induce bidirectional responses,

105 sometimes match a combination of target and distractor features.

106 A significantly greater contribution of distractor filtering at encoding represents a potential

107 that the right FEF houses key mechanisms for distractor filtering, pointing to a pivotal role of the

108 indicate that the right FEF participates in distractor-filtering mechanisms that are recruited when

109 igated this question by embedding irrelevant distractors (flanker arrows) within a reversal-learning

110 g period, when CS+ and CS- were presented as distractors for a different target.

111 rget frequencies was larger than that of the distractor frequencies when participants tracked two tar

112 frequency was adapted and improved when the distractor frequency was adapted.

113 liable to cue an incorrect response (i.e., "distractors"), frequently modulate task performance, eve

114 Consistent with previous work, we found that distractors had a greater influence on reaction time whe

115 e, such that reaction times were longer when distractors had a higher probability of being categorize

116 by neuroimaging data showing that high value distractors have different impacts on prefrontal and par

117 tion of visual cortex response to unattended distractors, have been documented in tasks of high load.

118 in displays with the same item number in the distractor hemisphere across different set sizes, thus r

119 sal attention network in dealing with visual distractors; however, the respective roles of different

120 ated hue from among seven other equiluminant distractor hues are extraordinarily selective, achieving

121 We also observed greater processing of distractor images during more stable and less error pron

122 For the forward EAB, emotional or neutral distractor images of people were presented before the ta

123 eceived empirical support: that a high value distractor improves the accuracy with which decisions be

124 Locating a target among distractors improves when the configuration of distracto

125 stimuli in each modality, then tested how a distractor in the other modality affected performance.

126 presence of a salient, yet task-irrelevant, distractor in the stimulus array interferes with target

127 ntation of visual, auditory, and audiovisual distractors in a double-step saccade task to investigate

128 uences of adding different types of auditory distractors in a visual selective attention task in wild

129 Neural responses to distractors in auditory cortex were selectively reduced

130 urons signal conflict between task goals and distractors in the rhesus macaque, particularly for biol

131 y individuals are unable to suppress salient distractors in time to prevent those items from capturin

132 onding to the evoked signal of the target or distractor, in a valid or invalid trial.

133 l representations related to task-irrelevant distractors increased when the distractors were previous

134 pharmacology study, we measured how flanking distractors influenced detection of a small contrast dec

135 t clear whether the value of task-irrelevant distractors influences behavior via competition in early

136 rding the specificity of this adjustment for distractor information and the stage(s) of processing af

137 ntrol assume adjustment of the processing of distractor information based on the overall distractor u

138 tor processing to the experienced utility of distractor information.

139 ility) but detrimental for the efficiency of distractor inhibition (cognitive stability).

140 ions about distracting information influence distractor inhibition at the neural level remains unclea

141 indings from behavioral studies suggest that distractor inhibition is not under similar direct contro

142 Here, we establish that distractor inhibition is not under the same top-down con

143 y predicting better task switching but worse distractor inhibition performance.

144 sk switching) and cognitive stability (i.e., distractor inhibition) in a sample of healthy human subj

145 ated potential component, a neural marker of distractor inhibition, and decreased decoding accuracy.

146 of variability on response time costs during distractor inhibition.

147 Although studies on distractor interference have supported the notion of uti

148 terestingly, this FEF-dependent reduction in distractor interference interacted with the contingent t

149 o noradrenergic tone-associated with reduced distractor interference.

150 ated previously found utility modulations of distractor interference.

151 ry impairment are particularly vulnerable to distractor interference.

152 ctations are neurally implemented and reduce distractor interference.

153 ss distracting speech in situations when the distractor is well segregated from the target.

154 ard-associated but currently task-irrelevant distractors is correlated across individuals with change

155 g to relevant information while blocking out distractors is crucial for goal-directed behavior, yet w

156 ts appropriate sensory inputs and suppresses distractors is unknown.

157 This representation is sensitive to distractors, it allows for a readout mechanism, and it c

158 spond to a target sound despite simultaneous distractors, just as humans can respond to one voice at

159 ttention resource sharing between target and distractor leading to inattentional blindness.

160 Crucially, distractor learning benefits were observed without targe

161 arning enhanced anticipatory sensory tuning, distractor learning only modulated reactive suppressive

162 based approaches using synthetic targets and distractors limit the real-world applicability of result

163 To determine how distractor location expectations facilitated performance

164 he LIP representation of both the target and distractor locations, and trials with shorter latency sa

165 nsistent decoding of VSTM content across all distractor manipulations and had multivariate responses

166 These results suggest that expected distractors may no longer be considered distractors by t

167 ask implementation builds on forming dynamic distractor models, based on continuous integration of di

168 enhanced for the target tone relative to the distractor noise.

169 eriments where a target object differed from distractor objects along both color and shape.

170 t is typically thought that strongly salient distractor objects capture more attention and are more d

171 ch of near-cardinal or oblique targets among distractors of the other orientation while controlling f

172 es so that the target on one trial becomes a distractor on another (building up interference and elic

173 gleton on prosaccade trials and the opposite distractor on antisaccade trials.

174 lect target elements from within an array of distractors on the basis of their spatial location or si

175 reversed in direction for the suppression of distractors on the left versus right.

176 ic) and then to test the effect of emotional distractors on this network.

177 ay no longer process expected distractors as distractors, once it has learned they can safely be igno

178 ents in which search displays with repeating distractor or target locations across trials allowed hum

179 ruct activity in neural populations tuned to distractor or target locations.

180 traction is prevented by suppressing salient distractors or by preferentially up-weighting the releva

181 tion of a target stimulus, the location of a distractor, or were provided no predictive information.

182 f action is ambiguous, uncertain, laden with distractors, or in a state of flux.

183 ce is susceptible to subtle perturbations of distractor orientation and optogenetic suppression of ne

184 optimal decoders to discriminate target from distractor orientations, adaptation increases animals' b

185 -guided saccade task, despite salient social distractors: OT reduced the interference of unfamiliar f

186 direction was significantly greater when the distractor-paired directions were close to the target-pa

187 orized information was found prior to strong distractors, paralleled by decreased pre-distractor alph

188 oral and neural responses to highly negative distractor pictures (compared with neutral pictures) wer

189 n attention was available for processing the distractor pictures, negative pictures resulted in behav

190 at manipulated attention to negative/neutral distractor pictures.

191 antly, the same effect was observed when the distractor preceded the execution of the first saccade.

192 ring neurons, they fail to negatively weight distractor-preferring neurons.

193 VSTM content was substantially modulated by distractor presence and predictability.

194 We found that neither distractor presence nor predictability during the memory

195 curvature increased with the salience of the distractor presented before the first saccade.

196 ks involved irrelevant emotional and neutral distractors presented during a competing cognitive chall

197 ractors presented during WM maintenance than distractors presented during encoding.

198 mory (WM) performance is compromised more by distractors presented during WM maintenance than distrac

199 ted on the cued hemifield while ignoring the distractors presented on the other hemifield.

200 learning about upcoming distractors changes distractor processing and directly contrasted the underl

201 for training-induced selective plasticity of distractor processing at multiple neural scales, benefit

202 ering, with robust, step-like attenuation in distractor processing between mono-synaptically coupled

203 a load-induced trade-off between target and distractor processing in retinotopic visual cortex.

204 ence for item-unspecific adjustment of early distractor processing to the experienced utility of dist

205 bly due to intrasynaptic dopamine) linked to distractor processing within the right caudate and poste

206 We observed that strongly salient distractors produced less disruption in goal-directed ac

207 op-down" weighting of anticipated target and distractor properties.

208 be reflecting individuals' ability to ignore distractors rather than their ability to maintain VWM re

209 electrophysiological reactions to emotional distractors regardless of their sleep state, they were s

210 ude was larger for probes on targets than on distractors, regardless of whether attention was divided

211 ompanied by a larger pupil response than was distractor rejection, and this effect was more pronounce

212 proved reliable, they were uncorrelated and distractor-related alpha power emerged from more anterio

213 r models, based on continuous integration of distractor-related information.

214 Ca(2+) imaging to analyze target-related and distractor-related neural responses throughout dorsal co

215 he behavioral cost engendered by the salient distractor relative to left FEF stimulation.

216 l capture begins with sensory modulations of distractor representations in early areas of visual cort

217 coding model (IEM) to assess the fidelity of distractor representations in early visual cortex.

218 strongly with attention control (measured as distractor resistance), independently of factors such as

219 als in areas V2-V3 linearly increased, while distractor response linearly decreased, with increased l

220 s: the more the target response exceeded the distractor response, the better the animals were at iden

221 search task in which the predictability of a distractor's location and/or spatial frequency was manip

222 cision space defined by the options' and the distractor's values.

223 Specific adaptation of target or distractor shifts performance either below or above chan

224 intain a task goal in the face of irrelevant distractors, should suffer under high levels of brain si

225 Furthermore, we found no effect of target-distractor similarity on VSTM behavioral performance, fu

226 Instead, distractor expectations reduced distractor-specific processing, as reflected in the disa

227 ping-morphing materials that avoid undesired distractor states, expanding their potential application

228 r matched-target stimulated-or did not match-distractor stimulated-the stimulated side.

229 itions (valid/invalid cue condition x target/distractor-stimulated).

230 to respond to target stimuli while ignoring distractor stimuli are poorly understood.

231 ow the cortical representation of target and distractor stimuli impacts behavior.

232 In contrast, responses to distractor stimuli were abruptly suppressed beyond senso

233 ere unaffected by increases in the number of distractor stimuli, particularly when these were present

234 For distractor stimuli, we observed strong signal activation

235 equired suppression of response to uncertain distractor stimuli.

236 ice in a detection task with both target and distractor stimuli.

237 rained to touch 'target' stimuli and ignore 'distractor' stimuli presented randomly on a touchscreen.

238 of attenuation when successfully ignoring a distractor stimulus and provide essential foundations fo

239 d shape, alone or when a similarly modulated distractor stimulus of the other modality occurred with

240 find that the presence of a roll or pitch ("distractor") stimulus reduces information transmitted by

241 ing different learning rates for targets and distractors, such that greater learning for low-reliabil

242 cteristics of VWM capacity in the absence of distractors, suggesting that they reflect the maintenanc

243 the results of a series of studies exploring distractor suppression and challenge this popular notion

244 ssing at multiple neural scales, benefitting distractor suppression and cognitive control.

245 Traditionally, these two processes (i.e. distractor suppression and conflict resolution) have bee

246 othesis that alpha power directly relates to distractor suppression and thus operates independently f

247 Instead, distractor suppression appears to strongly rely on learn

248 , suggesting that flexible target cueing and distractor suppression depend on distinct cognitive mech

249 iment 3, we use EEG to show that preparatory distractor suppression is associated with a diminished P

250 spite this paradox, it is often assumed that distractor suppression is controlled via similar top-dow

251 alized for target-related attention, whereas distractor suppression only emerges when the predictive

252 oral and EEG evidence to show that selective distractor suppression operates via an alternative mecha

253 suggest neural 'tunnel vision' as a form of distractor suppression under high perceptual load.

254 on task that decouples target selection from distractor suppression, we demonstrate that two sign-rev

255 on is the net result of target selection and distractor suppression.

256 election, but made distinct contributions to distractor suppression.

257 he neural mechanism of sensory selection and distractor suppression.

258 ha responses reflect target selection versus distractor suppression.

259 endent alpha power modulation is involved in distractor suppression.

260 us identification task, involving successive distractor-target presentation, and manipulated the over

261 Participants studied 30 scenes and, after a distractor task, drew as many images in as much detail a

262 st improved declarative memory relative to a distractor task.

263 ed away from a spatial representation of the distractor that was presented before the first saccade.

264 nlike humans, can be fooled by target-shaped distractors that are inconsistent with the expected targ

265 ct a pure tone target in a sequence of noise distractors that did not overlap in time.

266 ter targets (O, S, V, and +) presented among distractors (the letter X; Figure 1).

267 g attentional capture by a salient singleton distractor: the frontal eye field (FEF) and the cortex w

268 n similar processing of neutral and negative distractors, thus disabling accurate emotional discrimin

269 performance task with irrelevant background distractors to explore the relationship among behavioral

270 tion (left vs right) of either a target or a distractor tone sequence, while fixing the other in the

271 lity of exposed rats to identify 7 kHz among distractor tones on an adaptive tone discrimination task

272 y to target tones while actively suppressing distractor tones.

273 of time it took to perform the search task: distractors triggered the PD on fast-response trials, bu

274 Thus, a strongly salient distractor triggers suppression during goal-directed act

275 This effect generalized to distractors unrelated to the utility manipulation, provi

276 distractor information based on the overall distractor utility (e.g., predictive value regarding the

277 et presentation, and manipulated the overall distractor utility.

278 When the distractor was fixed in the front, alpha power relativel

279 e was dramatically impaired when an auditory distractor was introduced in the task.

280 tingent trial history, being maximal when no distractor was present on the previous trial relative to

281 When the distractor was stimulated, exogenous attention yielded r

282 ior and the identification of a target among distractors was identical in the arm and saccade tasks.

283 4-deficient mice in identifying targets from distractors was improved, their ability to switch attent

284 target location while the other served as a distractor, we could also estimate the importance of tas

285 TMS modulation of the target and distractor were both periodic (5 Hz, theta) and out of p

286 Retinotopic responses to target and distractors were assessed as a function of search load (

287 ts exhibited slower responses when emotional distractors were present, this response slowing was grea

288 Delay cell firing was reduced when distractors were presented during the delay epoch, where

289 sk-irrelevant distractors increased when the distractors were previously associated with a high rewar

290 l theta measures of top-down engagement with distractors were selectively restrained in trained human

291 We found that salient distractors were suppressed even when they resided in th

292 e point of gaze and filtering out peripheral distractors when the task required a narrow focusing of

293 s influenced by features of both yaw and the distractor, where the degree of influence is determined

294 pacity individuals actively suppress salient distractors, whereas low-capacity individuals are unable

295 by flickering stimuli, of moving targets and distractors while human observers performed a tracking t

296 Using natural soundscapes as distractors while subjects attend to a controlled rhythm

297 creased after reward-learning when CS+ was a distractor, while it increased when CS- was a distractor

298 ion of the correct action in the presence of distractors, while also improving execution through incr

299 nd ignore identical stimuli in the opposite, distractor whisker field.

300 , but only when central targets compete with distractors within the array.