Distractor Processing Research Articles

On the relationship of arousal and attentional distraction by emotional novel sounds

Unexpected and task-irrelevant sounds can impair performance in a task. It has been shown that highly arousing emotional distractor sounds impaired performance less compared to moderately arousing neutral distractor sounds. The present study tests whether these differential emotion-related distraction effects are directly related to an enhancement of arousal evoked by processing of emotional distractor sounds.We disentangled costs of orienting of attention and benefits of increased arousal levels during the presentation of highly arousing emotional and moderately arousing neutral novel sounds that were embedded in a sequence of repeated standard sounds. We used sound-related pupil dilation responses as a marker of arousal and RTs as a marker of distraction in a visual categorization task in 57 healthy young adults. Multilevel analyses revealed increased RT and increased pupil dilation in response to novel vs. standard sounds. Emotional novel sounds reduced distraction effects on the behavioral level and increased pupil dilation responses compared to neutral novel sounds. Bayes Factors revealed strong evidence against an inverse proportional relationship between behavioral distraction effects and sound-related pupil dilation responses for emotional sounds. Given that the activity of the locus coeruleus has been linked to both changes in pupil diameter and arousal, it may embody an indirect relationship as a common antecedent by the release of norepinephrine into brain networks involved in attention control and control of the pupil. The present study provides new insights into the relation of changes in arousal and attentional distraction during the processing of emotional task-irrelevant novel sounds.

Visual perceptual load and processing of somatosensory stimuli in primary and secondary somatosensory cortices

Load theory assumes that neural activation to distractors in early sensory cortices is modulated by the perceptual load of a main task, regardless of whether task and distractor share the same sensory modality or not. While several studies have investigated the question of load effects on distractor processing in early sensory areas, there is no functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study regarding load effects on somatosensory stimuli. Here, we used fMRI to investigate effects of visual perceptual load on neural responses to somatosensory stimuli applied to the wrist in a study with 44 participants. Perceptual load was manipulated by an established sustained visual detection task, which avoided simultaneous target and distractor presentations. Load was operationalized by detection difficulty of subtle or clear color changes of one of 12 rotating dots. While all somatosensory stimuli led to activation in somatosensory areas SI and SII, we found no statistically significant difference in brain activation to these stimuli under high compared to low sustained visual load. Moreover, exploratory Bayesian analyses supported the absence of differences. Thus, our findings suggest a resistance of somatosensory processing to at least some forms of visual perceptual load, possibly due to behavioural relevance of discrete somatosensory stimuli and separable attentional resources for the somatosensory and visual modality.

No reliable effect of task-irrelevant cross-modal statistical regularities on distractor suppression

Our sensory systems are known to extract and utilize statistical regularities in sensory inputs across space and time for efficient perceptual processing. Past research has shown that participants can utilize statistical regularities of target and distractor stimuli independently within a modality either to enhance the target or to suppress the distractor processing. Utilizing statistical regularities of task-irrelevant stimuli across different modalities also enhances target processing. However, it is not known whether distractor processing can also be suppressed by utilizing statistical regularities of task-irrelevant stimulus of different modalities. In the present study, we investigated whether the spatial (Experiment 1) and non-spatial (Experiment 2) statistical regularities of task-irrelevant auditory stimulus could suppress the salient visual distractor. We used an additional singleton visual search task with two high-probability colour singleton distractor locations. Critically, the spatial location of the high-probability distractor was either predictive (valid trials) or unpredictive (invalid trials) based on the statistical regularities of the task-irrelevant auditory stimulus. The results replicated earlier findings of distractor suppression at high-probability locations compared to the locations where distractors appear with lower probability. However, the results did not show any RT advantage for valid distractor location trials as compared with invalid distractor location trials in both experiments. When tested on whether participants can express awareness of the relationship between specific auditory stimulus and the distractor location, they showed explicit awareness only in Experiment 1. However, an exploratory analysis suggested a possibility of response biases at the awareness testing phase of Experiment 1. Overall, results indicate that irrespective of awareness of the relationship between auditory stimulus and distractor location regularities, there was no reliable influence of task-irrelevant auditory stimulus regularities on distractor suppression.

Decoding of Working Memory Contents in Auditory Cortex Is Not Distractor-Resistant.

Working memory enables the temporary storage of relevant information in the service of behavior. Neuroimaging studies have suggested that sensory cortex is involved in maintaining contents in working memory. This raised the question of how sensory regions maintain memory representations during the exposure to distracting stimuli. Multivariate pattern analysis of fMRI signals in visual cortex has shown that the contents of visual working memory could be decoded concurrently with passively viewed distractors. The present fMRI study tested whether this finding extends to auditory working memory and to active distractor processing. We asked participants to memorize the pitch of a target sound and to compare it with a probe sound presented after a 13 s delay period. In separate conditions, we compared a blank delay phase (no distraction) with either passive listening to, or active processing of, an auditory distractor presented throughout the memory delay. Consistent with previous reports, pitch-specific memory information could be decoded in auditory cortex during the delay in trials without distraction. In contrast, decoding of target sounds in early auditory cortex dropped to chance level during both passive and active distraction. This was paralleled by memory performance decrements under distraction. Extending the analyses beyond sensory cortex yielded some evidence for memory content-specific activity in inferior frontal and superior parietal cortex during active distraction. In summary, while our findings question the involvement of early auditory cortex in the maintenance of distractor-resistant working memory contents, further research should elucidate the role of hierarchically higher regions.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Information about sensory features held in working memory can be read out from hemodynamic activity recorded in human sensory cortices. Moreover, visual cortex can in parallel store visual content and process newly incoming, task-irrelevant visual input. The present study investigated the role of auditory cortex for working memory maintenance under distraction. While memorized sound frequencies could be decoded in auditory cortex in the absence of distraction, auditory distraction during the delay phase impaired memory performance and prevented decoding of information stored in working memory. Apparently, early auditory cortex is not sufficient to represent working memory contents under distraction that impairs performance. However, exploratory analyses indicated that, under distraction, higher-order frontal and parietal regions might contribute to content-specific working memory storage.

Effect of Auditory Distractors on Speech Recognition and Listening Effort.

Everyday listening environments are filled with competing noise and distractors. Although significant research has examined the effect of competing noise on speech recognition and listening effort, little is understood about the effect of distraction. The framework for understanding effortful listening recognizes the importance of attention-related processes in speech recognition and listening effort; however, it underspecifies the role that they play, particularly with respect to distraction. The load theory of attention predicts that resources will be automatically allocated to processing a distractor, but only if perceptual load in the listening task is low enough. If perceptual load is high (i.e., listening in noise), then resources that would otherwise be allocated to processing a distractor are used to overcome the increased perceptual load and are unavailable for distractor processing. Although there is ample evidence for this theory in the visual domain, there has been little research investigating how the load theory of attention may apply to speech processing. In this study, we sought to measure the effect of distractors on speech recognition and listening effort and to evaluate whether the load theory of attention can be used to understand a listener's resource allocation in the presence of distractors. Fifteen adult listeners participated in a monosyllabic words repetition task. Test stimuli were presented in quiet or in competing speech (+5 dB signal-to-noise ratio) and in distractor or no distractor conditions. In conditions with distractors, auditory distractors were presented before the target words on 24% of the trials in quiet and in noise. Percent-correct was recorded as speech recognition, and verbal response time (VRT) was recorded as a measure of listening effort. A significant interaction was present for speech recognition, showing reduced speech recognition when distractors were presented in the quiet condition but no effect of distractors when noise was present. VRTs were significantly longer when distractors were present, regardless of listening condition. Consistent with the load theory of attention, distractors significantly reduced speech recognition in the low-perceptual load condition (i.e., listening in quiet) but did not impact speech recognition scores in conditions of high perceptual load (i.e., listening in noise). The increases in VRTs in the presence of distractors in both low- and high-perceptual load conditions (i.e., quiet and noise) suggest that the load theory of attention may not apply to listening effort. However, the large effect of distractors on VRT in both conditions is consistent with the previous work demonstrating that distraction-related shifts of attention can delay processing of the target task. These findings also fit within the framework for understanding effortful listening, which proposes that involuntary attentional shifts result in a depletion of cognitive resources, leaving less resources readily available to process the signal of interest; resulting in increased listening effort (i.e., elongated VRT).

Working memory load modulates the processing of audiovisual distractors: A behavioral and event-related potentials study.

The interplay between different modalities can help to perceive stimuli more effectively. However, very few studies have focused on how multisensory distractors affect task performance. By adopting behavioral and event-related potentials (ERPs) techniques, the present study examined whether multisensory audiovisual distractors could attract attention more effectively than unisensory distractors. Moreover, we explored whether such a process was modulated by working memory load. Across three experiments, n-back tasks (1-back and 2-back) were adopted with peripheral auditory, visual, or audiovisual distractors. Visual and auditory distractors were white discs and pure tones (Experiments 1 and 2), pictures and sounds of animals (Experiment 3), respectively. Behavioral results in Experiment 1 showed a significant interference effect under high working memory load but not under low load condition. The responses to central letters with audiovisual distractors were significantly slower than those to letters without distractors, while no significant difference was found between unisensory distractor and without distractor conditions. Similarly, ERP results in Experiments 2 and 3 showed that there existed an integration only under high load condition. That is, an early integration for simple audiovisual distractors (240-340 ms) and a late integration for complex audiovisual distractors (440-600 ms). These findings suggest that multisensory distractors can be integrated and effectively attract attention away from the main task, i.e., interference effect. Moreover, this effect is pronounced only under high working memory load condition.

General deficits of attentional inhibition in high trait anxiety: ERP evidence.

Behavioral evidence shows that individuals with high trait anxiety tend to be distracted by irrelevant stimulation not only for threat-related stimuli but also for non-emotional neutral stimuli. These findings suggest that there may be a general deficit of attentional control in trait anxiety. However, the neural mechanism underlying the anxiety-related deficit in attentional control, especially inhibition function, is still unclear. Here, we examined the attentional processing of the non-emotional neutral distractor on 66 young adults with different levels of trait anxiety, using the ERP indices of attentional selection (N2pc) and top-down inhibition (Pd) in a search task with geometric stimuli. We found that the distractor-evoked N2pc amplitude did not vary with anxiety levels, but increased anxiety was associated with smaller Pds (i.e. worse inhibition). Besides, delayed attentional selection of targets was associated with higher anxiety levels. These correlations of trait anxiety remained significant even after controlling for state anxiety, and state anxiety did not affect the attentional processing of distractors and targets, suggesting that trait anxiety, not current anxiety, affects attentional function. Our findings clarify the mechanism underlying the general attentional deficits in trait anxiety, e.g. reduced distractor inhibition and delayed target selection.

Age-related differences in frontoparietal activation for target and distractor singletons during visual search.

Age-related decline in visual search performance has been associated with different patterns of activation in frontoparietal regions using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), but whether these age-related effects represent specific influences of target and distractor processing is unclear. Therefore, we acquired event-related fMRI data from 68 healthy, community-dwelling adults ages 18-78 years, during both conjunction (T/F target among rotated Ts and Fs) and feature (T/F target among Os) search. Some displays contained a color singleton that could correspond to either the target or a distractor. A diffusion decision analysis indicated age-related increases in sensorimotor response time across all task conditions, but an age-related decrease in the rate of evidence accumulation (drift rate) was specific to conjunction search. Moreover, the color singleton facilitated search performance when occurring as a target and disrupted performance when occurring as a distractor, but only during conjunction search, and these effects were independent of age. The fMRI data indicated that decreased search efficiency for conjunction relative to feature search was evident as widespread frontoparietal activation. Activation within the left insula mediated the age-related decrease in drift rate for conjunction search, whereas this relation in the FEF and parietal cortex was significant only for individuals younger than 30 or 44 years, respectively. Finally, distractor singletons were associated with significant parietal activation, whereas target singletons were associated with significant frontoparietal deactivation, and this latter effect increased with adult age. Age-related differences in frontoparietal activation therefore reflect both the overall efficiency of search and the enhancement from salient targets.

Motion distractors perturb saccade programming later in time than static distractors.

The mechanism that reweights oculomotor vectors based on visual features is unclear. However, the latency of oculomotor visual activations gives insight into their antecedent featural processing. We compared the oculomotor processing time course of grayscale, task-irrelevant static and motion distractors during target selection by continuously measuring a battery of human saccadic behavioral metrics as a function of time after distractor onset. The motion direction was towards or away from the target and the motion speed was fast or slow. We compared static and motion distractors and observed that both distractors elicited curved saccades and shifted endpoints at short latencies (∼25ms). After 50ms, saccade trajectory biasing elicited by motion distractors lagged static distractor trajectory biasing by 10ms. There were no such latency differences between distractor motion directions or motion speeds. This pattern suggests that additional processing of motion stimuli occurred prior to the propagation of visual information into the oculomotor system. We examined the interaction of distractor processing time (DPT) with two additional factors: saccadic reaction time (SRT) and saccadic amplitude. Shorter SRTs were associated with shorter DPT latencies of biased saccade trajectories. Both SRT and saccadic amplitude were associated with the magnitude of saccade trajectory biases.

The Hybrid Model of Attentional Selection: Perceptual Load

It is a crucial cognitive skill to select the relevant ones and exclude the irrelevant ones from all the stimuli we are exposed to in our constantly changing visual environment. While the long-standing early-late selection debates on the efficient attentional selection are still relevant, a hybrid theory was proposed by Lavie and Tsal (1994). Perceptual load theory is similar to the early selection approach in that it emphasizes limited capacity, while it is similar to late selection approaches in that it emphasizes automatic processing. In line with the theory, distractor processing depends on the task-relevant perceptual load. As perceptual load increases, unrelated stimuli can easily be excluded from the attention filter; because the capacity is full. The distractor interference effect is inevitable if the perceptual load is not high enough to fill the restricted capacity. According to the theory, the perceptual load is a key factor of the locus of selection. Although many support studies have been carried out after the theory was supposed, the number of studies inconsistent with the theory's assumptions, especially in recent years, cannot be ignored. Diverse studies have shown the importance of other factors in selective attention, such as salience, proximity, similarity, and dilution effect. In conclusion, despite being an important factor, the perceptual load is not the primary determinant in efficient attentional selection.

Attentional capture is modulated by stimulus saliency in visual search as evidenced by event-related potentials and alpha oscillations

This study used a typical four-item search display to investigate top-down control over attentional capture in an additional singleton paradigm. By manipulating target and distractor color and shape, stimulus saliency relative to the remaining items was systematically varied. One group of participants discriminated the side of a dot within a salient orange target (ST group) presented with green circles (fillers) and a green diamond distractor. A second group discriminated the side of the dot within a green diamond target presented with green circle fillers and a salient orange square distractor (SD group). Results showed faster reaction times and a shorter latency of the N2pc component in the event-related potential (ERP) to the more salient targets in the ST group. Both salient and less salient distractors elicited Pd components of equal amplitude. Behaviorally, no task interference was observed with the less salient distractor, indicating the prevention of attentional capture. However, reaction times were slower in the presence of the salient distractor, which conflicts with the hypothesis that the Pd reflects proactive distractor suppression. Contrary to recent proposals that elicitation of the Pd requires competitive interactions with a target, we found a greater Pd amplitude when the distractor was presented alone. Alpha-band amplitudes decreased during target processing (event-related desynchronization), but no significant amplitude enhancement was observed at electrodes contralateral to distractors regardless of their saliency. The results demonstrate independent neural mechanisms for target and distractor processing and support the view that top-down guidance of attention can be offset (counteracted) by relative stimulus saliency.

Response bias contributes to distractor suppression in Gaspelin et al.’s (2015) probe letter task

Visual attention is often inadvertently captured by salient stimuli. It was suggested that it is possible to prevent attentional capture in some search tasks by suppressing salient stimuli below baseline. Evidence for suppression comes from a probe task that was interleaved with the main search task. In the probe task of Gaspelin et al. (2015), letters were shown on the stimuli of the search display and participants had to identify as many letters as possible. Performance was found to be worse for letters shown on the distractor compared to non-salient nontarget stimuli, suggesting that distractor processing was suppressed below baseline. However, we propose that participants may have reported letters on the distractor less frequently than letters on nontargets. This response bias may have degraded performance for letters on distractor compared to nontarget stimuli. After replicating the original findings, we conducted an experiment where we avoided response bias by cueing only a single letter for report. Consistent with the response bias account, we found that the difference between distractor and nontarget stimuli disappeared. In contrast, the difference between target and nontarget stimuli persisted, showing that the modified probe task was sensitive to the deployment of attention induced by the search task. In sum, the results suggest that the probe letter task may not provide convincing evidence for attentional suppression.

The interaction of internal and external attention.

The internal/external framework of attention characterizes attention focused to perceptual stimuli and internal representations as highly similar processes. While much research on external attention examines how attention may be broadened or narrowed (attentional zoom lens), it is unclear if internal attention functions in a similar way. In the present study, we manipulate both internal and external attentions to be either broad or narrow. Participants first encoded either a broad or narrow working memory array containing three differently colored items. This array was maintained as they performed an Eriksen flanker task that was either distributed broadly or narrowly, followed by a memory test for a random memory item. We found that regardless of whether the flanker fell inside or outside of the internal breadth of attention, flanker congruency effects did not change. The exception to this was when internal breadth was manipulated with retrocuing, which resulted in greater congruency effects when flankers aligned with the span of internal breadth rather than falling outside of it. Overall, this study shows that internal breadth information is unlikely to alter processing of external distractors until some of the information is cued internally after encoding, suggesting limitations in the internal/external attention framework.

The influence of reward in the Simon task: Differences and similarities to the Stroop and Eriksen flanker tasks

Previous studies have suggested that performance-contingent reward can modulate cognitive control by biasing irrelevant location-response associations in the Simon task. However, the influence of reward in the case of irrelevant words (Stroop task) or irrelevant flankers (Eriksen Flanker task) remains unclear. Across two preregistered experiments, the present study investigated the influence of reward on conflict processing with different types of distractors. Conflict effects on mean reaction time (RT) were reduced in the Simon task (Experiments 1 and 2) when incongruent versus congruent trials were rewarded, and this modulating effect of reward on conflict processing was also observed in the Eriksen flanker task (Experiment 2), but not in the Stroop task (Experiment 1). We propose that cognitive control adjustments to distractor-specific reward contingencies can be generalized across distractor types producing both perceptual-related (Flanker task) and motor-related (Simon task) conflict, but, if any, to a limited degree when distractors produce additional higher-level task conflict (Stroop task). In addition, distributional RT analyses (delta plots) revealed that rewarded distractor-response associations modulate cognitive control not only via biasing the strength (Simon and Eriksen tasks) but also the time-course of suppressing distractor processing (Eriksen task). Overall, the present study dissociated distractor-general and distractor-specific effects of reward on cognitive control.

Do we parse the background into separate streams in the cocktail party?

In the cocktail party situation, people with normal hearing usually follow a single speaker among multiple concurrent ones. However, there is no agreement in the literature as to whether the background is segregated into multiple streams/speakers. The current study varied the number of concurrent speech streams and investigated target detection and memory for the contents of a target stream as well as the processing of distractors. A male-voiced target stream was either presented alone (single-speech), together with one male-voiced distractor (one-distractor), or a male- and a female-voiced distractor (two-distractor). Behavioral measures of target detection and content tracking performance as well as target- and distractor detection related event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were assessed. We found that the N2 amplitude decreased whereas the P3 amplitude increased from the single-speech to the concurrent speech streams conditions. Importantly, the behavioral effect of distractors differed between the conditions with one vs. two distractor speech streams and the non-zero voltages in the N2 time window for distractor numerals and in the P3 time window for syntactic violations appearing in the non-target speech stream significantly differed between the one- and two-distractor conditions for the same (male) speaker. These results support the notion that the two background speech streams are segregated, as they show that distractors and syntactic violations appearing in the non-target streams are processed even when two speech non-target speech streams are delivered together with the target stream.

Does attentional suppression occur at the level of perception or decision-making? Evidence from Gaspelin et al.’s (2015) probe letter task

Visual attention is often inadvertently captured by salient stimuli. It was suggested that it is possible to prevent attentional capture in some search tasks by suppressing salient stimuli below baseline. Evidence for attentional suppression comes from a probe task that was interleaved with the main search task. In the probe task of Gaspelin et al. (Psychol Sci 26(11):1740–1750, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615597913), letters were shown on the stimuli of the search display and participants had to identify as many letters as possible. Performance was found to be worse for letters shown on the distractor compared to non-salient non-target stimuli, suggesting that distractor processing was suppressed below baseline. However, it is unclear whether suppression occurred at the level of perception or decision-making because participants may have reported letters on the distractor less frequently than letters on nontargets. This decision-level bias may have degraded performance for letters on distractor compared to nontarget stimuli without changing perception. After replicating the original findings, we conducted two experiments where we avoided report bias by cueing only a single letter for report. We found that the difference between distractor and nontarget stimuli was strongly reduced, suggesting that decision-level processes contribute to attentional suppression. In contrast, the difference between target and non-target stimuli was unchanged, suggesting that it reflected perceptual-level enhancement of the target stimuli.

Difficulty suppressing visual distraction while dual tasking

Human beings must often perform multiple tasks concurrently or in rapid succession. Laboratory research has revealed striking limitations in the ability to dual task by asking participants to identify two target objects that are inserted into a rapid stream of irrelevant items. Under a variety of conditions, identification of the second target (T2) is impaired for a short period of time following presentation of the first target (T1). Several theories have been developed to account for this “attentional blink” (AB), but none makes a specific prediction about how processing of T1 might impact an observer’s ability to ignore a salient distractor that accompanies T2. Using event-related potentials (ERPs) to track target and distractor processing, we show that healthy young adults are capable of suppressing a salient visual-search distractor (D2) while dual tasking (as measured by the PD component, which has been associated with suppression) but struggle to do so shortly after the appearance of T1. In fact, the impairment was more severe for distractor processing than it was for target processing (as measured by the N2pc component). Whereas, the T2-elicited N2pc was merely delayed during the AB, the distractor PD was reduced in magnitude and was found to be statistically absent. We conclude that the inhibitory control processes that are typically engaged to prevent distraction are unavailable while an observer is busy processing a target that appeared earlier.

Task-irrelevant filler items alter the dynamics of electrical brain activity during visual search.

In electroencephalography (EEG) studies of visual search, task-irrelevant fillers are included in displays to balance bottom-up stimulation across the visual field and generally considered as inconsequential for performance or EEG results. We examined the impact of fillers on target and distractor processing using lateralised event-related potentials (ERPs). Two task-relevant items (TRIs) were presented, with or without fillers. One TRI (target or target-colour distractor) was on the vertical midline and the other in a lateral position (left or right visual field) on an imaginary circle around fixation. An N2pc was elicited by lateral targets and task-relevant distractors, suggesting that attention was allocated to the lateral TRI because it possessed a target defining feature (colour). A Ptc was only elicited by lateral task-relevant distractors, in line with previous research suggesting that this component is associated with distractor processing. When fillers were also in the circular arrangement, alterations in performance and neural activity occurred. Fillers enhanced and delayed attentional deployment (N2pc) and delayed distractor processing (Ptc). Critically, we observed no difference in Ptc amplitude according to filler presence. Thus, if the Ptc reflects active suppression (or attentional disengagement), it was not required for fillers. ERPs were also modulated by the distance between TRIs (which could be separated by one or four filler positions), but differently according to the colour scheme (blue TRIs with grey fillers or vice versa). Our results suggest that fillers affect lateralised electrophysiological activity at multiple loci during visual search and should not be considered inconsequential.

Biased Competition between Targets and Distractors Reduces Attentional Suppression: Evidence from the Positivity Posterior Contralateral and Distractor Positivity.

The biased competition account claims that competition between two stimuli increases when they are close together compared with when they are far apart. The reason is that nearby stimuli are more likely to be represented in the same receptive fields, requiring top-down or bottom-up biases to resolve the ambiguity. Consistent with biased competition, previous research showed that an index of attentional enhancement, the N2pc component, was attenuated when two targets were close together. In contrast, it is unclear whether distractor processing would also be attenuated when the distractor is close to the target. To answer this question, we used the additional singleton paradigm where a target is sometimes accompanied by a more salient, but entirely irrelevant, distractor. In the conditions of interest, the distance between the target and the distractor was systematically manipulated whereas the eccentricity to central fixation was always the same. The results showed that two indices of attentional suppression, the positivity posterior contralateral and distractor positivity components, were attenuated when the distractor was close to the target. Consistent with biased competition, attentional suppression of distractors was inhibited when the distance between target and distractor was short. The reduced attentional suppression of distractors with nearby targets may contribute to the increased behavioral interference with close distractors.

Hearing "Birch" Hampers Saying "Duck"-An Event-Related Potential Study on Phonological Interference in Immediate and Delayed Word Production.

When speakers name a picture (e.g., "duck"), a distractor word phonologically related to an alternative name (e.g., "birch" related to "bird") slows down naming responses compared with an unrelated distractor word. This interference effect obtained with the picture-word interference task is assumed to reflect the phonological coactivation of close semantic competitors and is critical for evaluating contemporary models of word production. In this study, we determined the ERP signature of this effect in immediate and delayed versions of the picture-word interference task. ERPs revealed a differential processing of related and unrelated distractors: an early (305-436 msec) and a late (537-713 msec) negativity for related as compared with unrelated distractors. In the behavioral data, the interference effect was only found in immediate naming, whereas its ERP signature was also present in delayed naming. The time window of the earlier ERP effect suggests that the behavioral interference effect indeed emerges at a phonological processing level, whereas the functional significance of the later ERP effect is as yet not clear. The finding of a robust ERP correlate of phonological coactivation might facilitate future research on lexical processing in word production.