ライフサイエンスコーパス: distractor

1 vity associated with competing alternatives (distractors).

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

3 t a feature somewhere between the target and distractor.

4 ts from the interruption of rehearsal by the distractor.

5 modulation following erroneous saccades to a distractor.

6 mance to levels observed in the absence of a distractor.

7 a target, neutral distractors, and a flanker distractor.

8 ying the ITI, or (4) adding a flashing light distractor.

9 ce of salient visual targets surrounded by a distractor.

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

11 f the attended feature while suppressing the distractor.

12 s reduction depending on the variance of the distractor.

13 tentional interference from strongly salient distractors.

14 in goal-directed action than weakly salient distractors.

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

16 VWM representations rather than filtering of distractors.

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

18 tones delivered on-beat and interleaved with distractors.

19 ontally or at inclines, and while exposed to distractors.

20 c tuning correlations for target matches and distractors.

21 equired them to find targets in sequences of distractors.

22 o not distinguish the search target from the distractors.

23 a target stimulus among different numbers of distractors.

24 ssesses sustained attention with and without distractors.

25 g the detection of cues and the filtering of distractors.

26 y and unpredictably among visually identical distractors.

27 rred target was presented in the presence of distractors.

28 ntralateral to locations expected to contain distractors.

29 cially in the context of salient incongruent distractors.

30 tended targets and suppression of unattended distractors.

31 or difficult depending on the nature of the distractors.

32 of how well they distinguish the object from distractors.

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

34 perceptual interactions between targets and distractors.

35 fects on retinotopic responses to target and distractors.

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

37 uences of adding different types of auditory distractors.

38 as implemented to rapidly discount potential distractors.

39 efined target while trying to ignore salient distractors.

40 in regulating the conflict between goals and distractors.

41 iding selection and segregation amid similar distractors.

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

43 stractor-present trials were slower than for distractor-absent trials.

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

45 rk of biased competition, where intended and distractor actions can be represented as competing and q

46 The cycle time of the distractor actions was subtly manipulated across trials,

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

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

49 also found, though numerically reduced, when distractor and executed actions were different (e.g., to

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

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

52 the presence of previously relevant, salient distractors and maintaining sustained attention over pro

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

54 vely shortened the temporal distance between distractors and targets needed to achieve a fixed level

55 tasks--were used to assess the influence of distractors and the ability to update ongoing action pla

56 prevent the allocation of attention to known distractors and to terminate attention after the percept

57 search task that contained a target, neutral distractors, and a flanker distractor.

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

59 monitoring reward and error rates, filtering distractors, and suppressing prepotent, and competitive

60 rected to it (prosaccade) or to the opposite distractor (antisaccade), has been influential in addres

61 arget squares; an irrelevant color singleton distractor appeared on 50% of trials.

62 On some trials, visual distractors appeared remote from the target location.

63 ntraparietal area (LIP) to a task-irrelevant distractor are strongly suppressed when the monkey plans

64 uggesting that attempts to focus on external distractors are counterproductive in this situation.

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

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

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

68 interference effect is observed whether the distractors are pure tones or band-pass noise, so an aud

69 re difficult the more similar the target and distractors are to each other.

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

71 h display contained several worthless items (distractors) as well as two targets, whose value and sal

72 NGS: In Experiment 1, distractibility from a distractor at a fixed distance from the target was great

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

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

75 pulation responds more to a target than to a distractor before the saccade even begins to bring the s

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

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

78 the target input must be differentiated from distractors by the amplitude, phase or frequency of its

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

80 area (LIP) can predict the amount of time a distractor can shift the locus of spatial attention away

81 raining approach that adaptively manipulated distractor challenge.

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

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

84 Distractor-colored and neutral objects evoked equivalent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

92 For search, only the orientation of the distractors differed from the target, so effortful atten

93 p-out, both the color and orientation of the distractors differed from the target, which attracted at

94 dally, auditory streams from both target and distractor directions bias the perceived number of event

95 sing the monkey's motivation enhances target-distractor discriminability by enhancing both distractor

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

97 n of distractor effects across the target-to-distractor distances demonstrated that the distribution

98 ing distractibility across several target-to-distractor distances.

99 ined attention task (SAT), presentation of a distractor (dSAT) augmented performance-associated incre

100 hlear transmission aids in ignoring auditory distractors during attention.

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

102 ether they interacted to select targets from distractors during visual search.

103 a failure to evoke the usually robust Remote Distractor Effect in P1, even though distractors in the

104 The pattern of distractor effects across the target-to-distractor dista

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

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

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

108 Resistance to visual distractors exhibited small improvements with age.

109 ued (30%) in order to examine the effects of distractor expectancy on attentional control as well as

110 study the interaction of perceptual load and distractor expectancy was explored.

111 The effects of distractor expectancy were assessed using event-related

112 tor processing was examined as a function of distractor expectancy.

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

114 ing than young adults (mean age 24) when the distractor face was incompatible with the target name.

115 senting target names alongside to-be-ignored distractor faces.

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

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

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

119 Certain distractor features may induce bidirectional responses,

120 sometimes match a combination of target and distractor features.

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

122 These data support a role of the pulvinar in distractor filtering--suppressing information from compe

123 ing a memory saccade task in which a salient distractor flashed at a variable timing and location dur

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

125 Although distractor frequencies reliably biased response cycle ti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

136 fication than during erroneous saccades to a distractor in RF, thus suggesting that this modulation i

137 t would otherwise respond to a high-saliency distractor in the task.

138 and a delayed match-to-sample task involving distractors in 25 human participants.

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

140 Neural responses to distractors in auditory cortex were selectively reduced

141 are vital to the selection of a target among distractors in behaving animals.

142 Remote Distractor Effect in P1, even though distractors in the neglected field were presented at abo

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

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

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

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

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

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

149 tor processing to the experienced utility of distractor information.

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

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

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

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

154 of variability on response time costs during distractor inhibition.

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

156 o noradrenergic tone-associated with reduced distractor interference.

157 ated previously found utility modulations of distractor interference.

158 ry impairment are particularly vulnerable to distractor interference.

159 rimination task is impaired when an auditory distractor is presented with the tactile stimuli, but on

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

161 ts appropriate sensory inputs and suppresses distractors is unknown.

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

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

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

165 mproving one's ability to suppress no-change distractors located on the irrelevant side of the displa

166 viation of saccade trajectory, away from the distractor location.

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

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

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

170 urons had higher levels of discharge than SC distractor neurons in subsets of trials when selection p

171 decreased in target neurons and increased in distractor neurons.

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

173 tional shifts help ameliorate the problem of distractor objects.

174 resulted from visuomotor interactions during distractor observation, rather than from visual monitori

175 hese components were embedded in an array of distractors of similar complexity.

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

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

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

179 asked to find and touch a target among five distractors on a touch screen.

180 The consequences of a failure to ignore distractors on recognition performance was replicated fo

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

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

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

184 eflect increased inhibition of the competing distractor, or reduced salience of the endogenous saccad

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

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

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

188 Nevertheless, as distractor P2 amplitude increased, so too did target P3

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

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

191 at manipulated attention to negative/neutral distractor pictures.

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

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

194 Analyses of distractor-present displays (anticipated versus unantici

195 istraction effect in which response times to distractor-present trials were slower than for distracto

196 t, here we establish a beneficial effect for distractor presentation in humans for both patients with

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

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

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

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

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

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

203 al attentional control mechanisms to inhibit distractor processing even when threat-related stimuli a

204 indings suggest a reduced ability to prevent distractor processing in old age.

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

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

207 gets and irrelevant distractors, target, and distractor processing was examined as a function of dist

208 electrophysiological measures of target and distractor processing were examined in an auditory selec

209 , connecting experience-dependent changes in distractor processing with greater distinctiveness of ta

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

211 older adults was indeed associated with more distractor processing, was shown by the face-related N17

212 on attentional control as well as target and distractor processing.

213 The competing distractor produced a deviation of saccade trajectory, a

214 d processing speed, while the flashing light distractor produced comprehensive impairment affecting m

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

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

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

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

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

220 his study, we investigate age differences in distractor rejection by presenting target names alongsid

221 f the right frontal eye field increased this distractor-related deviation compared that observed when

222 The enhanced distractor-related deviation following FEF stimulation c

223 The increase in distractor-related deviation of trajectory, following FE

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

225 anscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) on the distractor-related modulation of saccade trajectories.

226 ent target in the presence of highly salient distractors requires top-down attentional guidance.

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

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

229 Distractor responses were more strongly suppressed and m

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

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

232 only a small fraction of the modulations in distractor speed, as well as of the modulations produced

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

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

235 rts population-level filtering of irrelevant distractor stimuli, thereby enhancing the population res

236 esented with the target and three additional distractor stimuli, which were constructed to induce eit

237 equired suppression of response to uncertain distractor stimuli.

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

239 al version of the TMS experiment, in which a distractor stimulus (memory mask) replaced the TMS pulse

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

241 n are biased by the content of the competing distractor stream.

242 ources to successfully ignore highly salient distractors such as tobacco-related stimuli and therefor

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

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

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

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

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

248 istractor discriminability by enhancing both distractor suppression and the saccade goal representati

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

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

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

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

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

254 tention task before and after three weeks of distractor suppression training.

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

256 election, but made distinct contributions to distractor suppression.

257 gm with task-relevant targets and irrelevant distractors, target, and distractor processing was exami

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

259 esented scenes, when they are separated by a distractor that masks the transients typically associate

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

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

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

263 Importantly, distractors that strongly impair frequency discriminatio

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

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

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

267 y to target tones while actively suppressing distractor tones.

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

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

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

271 for a target object embedded in an array of distractors, until their performance improved from near-

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

273 et presentation, and manipulated the overall distractor utility.

274 looks for a target object among an array of distractors, V4 neurons become selective for the target

275 y guided delayed saccade with an intervening distractor, variability (measured by the Fano factor) de

276 Finally, when the distractor was incompatible in both dimensions (action t

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

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

279 4-deficient mice in identifying targets from distractors was improved, their ability to switch attent

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

281 ial attention immediately after the onset of distractors, we observe that the ability to override att

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

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

284 In both experiments, distractors were either validly cued (70%) or invalidly

285 ans were near-optimal, regardless of whether distractors were homogeneous or heterogeneous and whethe

286 luntarily reallocated spatial attention when distractors were present in the display.

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

290 Participants named pictures more slowly when distractors were semantically related or phonologically

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

292 al circuit for the downregulation of salient distractors when a low-salient target is selected, combi

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

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

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

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

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

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

299 sh name of the picture than when picture and distractor word were unrelated.

300 n their L2 English while ignoring L2 English distractor words that were visually presented with the p