Open Research Newcastle
Browse

A cognitive model of response omissions in distraction paradigms

Download (1.08 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 2025-05-11, 19:18 authored by Karyle A. M. Damaso, Spencer C. Castro, Juanita ToddJuanita Todd, David L. Strayer, Alexander Provost, Dora Matzke, Andrew HeathcoteAndrew Heathcote
The effects of distraction on responses manifest in three ways: prolonged reaction times, and increased error and response omission rates. However, the latter effect is often ignored or assumed to be due to a separate cognitive process. We investigated omissions occurring in two paradigms that manipulated distraction. One required simple stimulus detection of younger participants, the second required choice responses and was completed by both younger and older participants. We fit data from these paradigms with a model that identifies three causes of omissions: two are related to the process of accumulating the evidence on which a response is based: intrinsic omissions (due to between-trial variation in accumulation rates making it impossible to ever reach the evidence threshold) and design omissions (due to response windows that cause slow responses not to be recorded; a third, contaminant omissions, allows for a cause unrelated to the response process. In both data sets systematic differences in omission rates across conditions were accounted for by task-related omissions. Intrinsic omissions played a lesser role than design omissions, even though the presence of design omissions was not evident in descriptive analyses of the data. The model provided an accurate account of all aspects of the detection data and the choice-response data, but slightly underestimated overall omissions in the choice paradigm, particularly in older participants, suggesting that further investigation of contaminant omission effects is needed.

History

Journal title

Memory and Cognition

Volume

50

Issue

5

Pagination

962-978

Publisher

Springer

Language

  • en, English

College/Research Centre

College of Engineering, Science and Environment

School

School of Psychological Sciences

Rights statement

This version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review (when applicable) and is subject to Springer Nature’s AM terms of use, but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01265-z

Usage metrics

    Publications

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC