节律性时间期待效应不受注意控制的影响

Temporal Expectancy Induced by Rhythms Is Resistant to Attention Control

采用双任务范式探讨当听觉节律刺激序列以较慢速度呈现时,其诱导产生的时间期待效应是否受到同时进行的视觉工作记忆任务的影响。结果发现,无论目标刺激是呈现在听觉通道还是视觉通道,双任务和单任务条件下目标刺激出现在规律听觉刺激序列之后被试的反应时均快于目标出现在非规律听觉刺激序列之后,即节律性刺激序列诱导产生的时间期待效应不受工作记忆任务的影响。该结果表明节律性时间期待效应不受注意控制的影响。

Is temporal expectation created passively and purely unintentionally when we are exposed to rhythmic patterns？ Previous studies using the dual-task paradigm found that temporal expectancy induced by regular auditory events sequence was resistant to working memory （WM） interference. However, the paces of the events sequence were fast in these studies. There may involve different processes between the ranges of sub-seconds and supra-seconds. Therefore, in the current study, we used the dual-task paradigm to investigate whether participants could develop temporal expectancy driven by auditory isochronous rhythmic events sequence with slow rate paces, and further to test whether this effect could survive the interference of WM task with two different experiments. A total of 65 subjects participated in two experiments, with 31 in experiment one and 34 in experiment two. In both experiments, participants were told that the auditory sequences were irrelevant to the tasks, and they just needed to ignore them. In Experiment 1, auditory events in a sequence separated by a fixed （650ms regular condition） or jittered （350/650/950/1250/1550ms irregular condition） intervals. In the single task condition, participants were required to finish a reaction time task, pressing button ＂B＂ to respond to auditory target （400Hz, lOOms） presented after a regular or an irregular sequence of auditory stimuli. In the dual-task condition, participants had to concurrently finish a counting WM task. The WM task consisted of remembering how many times each color appeared during a block of trials. At the end of each block, participants should type how many times a certain color had been presented, Each color was selected randomly, with the same probability for the memory test. The three-way repeated measures analysis of variance （ANOVA） was conducted on rhythm （regular vs. irregular sequence） and foreperiods, the intervals between the end of auditory sequence and onset of targets （650ms, 950ms, vs. 1250ms）, as within-subjects factors, with tasks （single ＆ dual-task） as between-subjects factors. The results revealed that participants responded faster after regular （compared with irregular） sequences. In addition, the interaction between rhythm and task was not significant, which meant that the temporal expectancy effect was not affected by the WM task. However, auditory events sequence and targets were both presented in the auditory modality in Experiment 1. Participants might notice the auditory events sequence more or less while they responded to targets, even though they were told to ignore the sequences. In order to draw attention away from the auditory sequences as far as possible, we replaced the auditory targets with visual targets in Experiment 2. The results from repeated ANOVA revealed that there was no significant interact between rhythm and task. More specifically, the dual-task did not affect temporal expectancy induced by rhythms, with faster RTs after regular sequences than after irregular ones. The present study confirmed the previous finding that the temporal expectancy effect survived the interference of the WM task. Furthermore, our results extended this effect to vision modality. Taken together, our results suggested that rhythmic temporal expectation might involve a bottom-up process and was independent of cognitive control process.