Divided attention impairs detection of simple visual features

Covert spatial attention allows us to prioritize processing at relevant locations. There is substantial evidence that perception is poorer when attention is distributed across multiple locations than when attention is focused on a single location. However, recent work suggests that may not always be the case: divided attention does not appear to impair detection of simple visual features that are represented in primary visual cortex. Here, we re-examined this possibility. In two experiments, observers detected a simple target (a vertical Gabor), and we manipulated whether attention was focused at one location (focal-cue condition) or distributed across two locations (distributed-cue condition). In Experiment 1, targets could appear independently at each location. Thus, observers needed to judge target presence for each location separately in the distributed-cue condition. Under these conditions, we found a robust cost of dividing attention. In this experiment, the cost of dividing attention could reflect either a limit in perceptual processing or a limit in decision making. Therefore, in Experiment 2, we simplified the task to more directly test whether dividing attention impairs perceptual processing of the target. Specifically, only one target could appear on each trial, such that observers made the exact same decision in both conditions (“was a target present?”). Here, we found a marginal cost of dividing attention on performance, that was weaker than the cost in Experiment 1. Together, our results suggest that divided attention does impair detection of simple visual features, but that this cost is primarily due to limits in post-perceptual decision making.

Behavioral Assessment and Treatment of Aerophagia

Aerophagia is characterized by excessive air swallowing and can have serious negative effects on one’s health. We present the assessment and treatment of a 16-year-old girl, Khloe, with developmental disabilities and aerophagia. The initial assessment indicated that aerophagia occurred primarily to access attention in a divided attention context; however, our function-based treatment did not result in a clinically significant reduction in problem behavior. We then conducted a second assessment that indicated that Khloe’s aerophagia indeed occurred primarily in a divided attention context, but that it persisted independent of social consequences. We concluded that the divided attention context served as a motivating variable for aerophagia. Our second treatment consisted of differential reinforcement of other behavior, noncontingent access to competing stimuli, and graduated exposure to contextual variables (i.e., people and divided attention) that occasioned aerophagia. The treatment was successful in reducing rates of aerophagia. We discuss implications for assessment and treatment, as well as recommendations for clinicians and students.

A simulation of older adults’ associative memory deficit using structural process interference in young adults

Associative memory deficit underlies a part of older adults’ deficient episodic memory due to the reduced ability to bind units of information. In this article we further assess the mechanism underlying this deficit, by assessing the degree to which we can model it in young adults under conditions of divided attention. We shall describe two experiments in this paper; these experiments investigate item and associative recognition in young adults under full- or divided-attention conditions. The secondary tasks employed were N-back like (NBL), which serves as a working memory updating task, and parity judgement and visuospatial (VS) tasks, which serve as non-working memory tasks. The results of both experiments show that only the NBL specifically affected associative recognition, while the other tasks affected item and associative memory to the same degree, indicating a general resource competition. These results presented a convergence of evidence for the associative deficit in older adults by modelling it in young adults.

Investigating the Role of Labelling and Packaging on Medication Error

<p>Medication administration error contributes to deaths and injury in hospitals, especially in the area of anaesthesia. Labelling and packaging contribute to medication error. The current study examined the role of labelling and packaging in medication error and compared medically trained and medically naive participants. Using eye-tracking equipment, Study 1A investigated the distribution of fixations across 32 pre-existing medication labels and packages. Both groups of participants fixated less on the dose and top of medications than on the name and ‘other’ features. Both medical experience and packaging type influenced on which label areas participants fixated. Medical participants fixated on dose more than control participants; there were no other differences between groups. In Study 1B participants viewed a target medication, they were then asked whether it was present in an array. The target was present in 50% of arrays. Distractors varied in similarity to the target. Signal detection theory analysis of discriminability through d’ revealed that medical participants were significantly better than control participants at discriminating whether or not the target was in the array. Bias analyses through C revealed that there was no difference between the biases of the two groups. Both groups of participants adopted a liberal criterion which increased the occurrence of false alarms. Across all trials, participants were most likely to select a distractor that differed only in the dose of the medication. Divided attention can increase medication error rates, therefore Study 1C utilised the same procedure as Study 1B and added a divided attention task. During the divided attention task participants saw a string of either five or seven letters and were later asked to recall one of the letters. Both groups of participants recalled fewer letters in the seven-letter compared to five-letter condition. There was no difference in the overall performance of the two groups on the divided attention task. Both groups showed a significant reduction in discriminability under the seven- compared to five-letter divided attention condition. Medical participants had significantly higher discriminability indices than control participants. Both groups of participants adopted a liberal criterion, however control participants were more biased than medical professionals. Control participants displayed an increase in bias in the seven-letter, compared to five-letter condition; the bias of medical participants was not influenced by the divided attention task. As in Study 1B, participants were most likely to select a distractor that differed only in the dose of the medication.</p>

Investigating the Role of Labelling and Packaging on Medication Error

<p>Medication administration error contributes to deaths and injury in hospitals, especially in the area of anaesthesia. Labelling and packaging contribute to medication error. The current study examined the role of labelling and packaging in medication error and compared medically trained and medically naive participants. Using eye-tracking equipment, Study 1A investigated the distribution of fixations across 32 pre-existing medication labels and packages. Both groups of participants fixated less on the dose and top of medications than on the name and ‘other’ features. Both medical experience and packaging type influenced on which label areas participants fixated. Medical participants fixated on dose more than control participants; there were no other differences between groups. In Study 1B participants viewed a target medication, they were then asked whether it was present in an array. The target was present in 50% of arrays. Distractors varied in similarity to the target. Signal detection theory analysis of discriminability through d’ revealed that medical participants were significantly better than control participants at discriminating whether or not the target was in the array. Bias analyses through C revealed that there was no difference between the biases of the two groups. Both groups of participants adopted a liberal criterion which increased the occurrence of false alarms. Across all trials, participants were most likely to select a distractor that differed only in the dose of the medication. Divided attention can increase medication error rates, therefore Study 1C utilised the same procedure as Study 1B and added a divided attention task. During the divided attention task participants saw a string of either five or seven letters and were later asked to recall one of the letters. Both groups of participants recalled fewer letters in the seven-letter compared to five-letter condition. There was no difference in the overall performance of the two groups on the divided attention task. Both groups showed a significant reduction in discriminability under the seven- compared to five-letter divided attention condition. Medical participants had significantly higher discriminability indices than control participants. Both groups of participants adopted a liberal criterion, however control participants were more biased than medical professionals. Control participants displayed an increase in bias in the seven-letter, compared to five-letter condition; the bias of medical participants was not influenced by the divided attention task. As in Study 1B, participants were most likely to select a distractor that differed only in the dose of the medication.</p>

Cognitive Network Reconstruction in Opioid Users Compared To Non-Users: Topological Analysis of Cognitive Function Through Graph Model and Centrality Measures

Cognitive dysfunction related to opioid use disorder (OUD) requires investigation of the interconnected network of cognitive domains through behavioral experiments and graph data modeling. Here, we conducted n-back, selective and divided attention, and Wisconsin card sorting tests and then reconstructed the interactive cognitive network of subscales or domains for opioid users and non-users to identify the most central cognitive functions and their connections using graph model analysis. Then, each network was analyzed topologically based on the betweenness and closeness centrality measures. Results from the opioid users’ network show that in the divided attention module, the reaction time and the number of commission errors were the most central subscales of cognitive function. Whereas in non-users, the number of correct responses and commission errors were the most central cognitive measure. These findings corroborate that opioid users show impaired divided attention as higher reaction time and errors in performing the tasks. Divided attention is the most central cognitive function in both OUD subjects and non-users, although differences were observed between the subscales of the two groups. Therefore, divided attention is a promising target for future cognitive therapies, treatments and rehabilitation as its improvement may lead to an enhancement of overall cognitive domain performance.