No sound is more distracting than the one you're trying not to hear: delayed costs of mental control of task-irrelevant neutral and emotional sounds.
Emotion
Mental control
Sound
Suppression
Journal
BMC psychology
ISSN: 2050-7283
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101627676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Feb 2022
21 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
17
11
2021
accepted:
15
02
2022
entrez:
22
2
2022
pubmed:
23
2
2022
medline:
24
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Suppressing intrusive thoughts can result in a post-suppression rebound effect where the same thoughts become hyperaccessible. The current study aimed to investigate if similar so-called rebound effects could be observed when people attempted to mentally suppress awareness of nonsensical auditory stimuli. Based on previous research on thought suppression and mental control in other domains, we hypothesized that attempting to suppress awareness of a task-irrelevant sound while under cognitive load would impact evaluations of the sound on affective dimensions and loudness, and result in increased general vigilance, as evidenced by faster responding on subsequent tasks. We performed two experiments where participants in a suppression condition were initially instructed to mentally suppress awareness of a sound while performing a mentally challenging task. Participants in a control condition performed the same task without receiving any instructions regarding the sound. In Experiment 1, the sound was affectively neutral, while in Experiment 2 participants were presented with an inherently aversive (tinnitus-like) sound. After this initial phase, participants performed tasks measuring vigilance and attention, and were also asked to give subjective ratings of the sounds on a number of affective dimensions and loudness. In Experiment 1, participants in the suppression condition showed faster response times on both a visual search task and an auditory spatial cueing task, as compared to participants in the control condition. Contrary to our predictions, participants in the suppression condition did not rate the distractor sound as louder than participants in the control condition, and there were no differences on affective dimensions. In Experiment 2, results revealed that participants in the suppression condition made more errors on a visual search task, specifically on trials where the previously suppressed sound was presented. In contrast to results from Experiment 1, participants in the suppression condition also rated the targeted sound as louder. The findings provide preliminary support for a post-suppression rebound effect in the auditory domain and further suggest that this effect may be moderated by the emotional properties of the auditory stimulus.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Suppressing intrusive thoughts can result in a post-suppression rebound effect where the same thoughts become hyperaccessible. The current study aimed to investigate if similar so-called rebound effects could be observed when people attempted to mentally suppress awareness of nonsensical auditory stimuli. Based on previous research on thought suppression and mental control in other domains, we hypothesized that attempting to suppress awareness of a task-irrelevant sound while under cognitive load would impact evaluations of the sound on affective dimensions and loudness, and result in increased general vigilance, as evidenced by faster responding on subsequent tasks.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed two experiments where participants in a suppression condition were initially instructed to mentally suppress awareness of a sound while performing a mentally challenging task. Participants in a control condition performed the same task without receiving any instructions regarding the sound. In Experiment 1, the sound was affectively neutral, while in Experiment 2 participants were presented with an inherently aversive (tinnitus-like) sound. After this initial phase, participants performed tasks measuring vigilance and attention, and were also asked to give subjective ratings of the sounds on a number of affective dimensions and loudness.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In Experiment 1, participants in the suppression condition showed faster response times on both a visual search task and an auditory spatial cueing task, as compared to participants in the control condition. Contrary to our predictions, participants in the suppression condition did not rate the distractor sound as louder than participants in the control condition, and there were no differences on affective dimensions. In Experiment 2, results revealed that participants in the suppression condition made more errors on a visual search task, specifically on trials where the previously suppressed sound was presented. In contrast to results from Experiment 1, participants in the suppression condition also rated the targeted sound as louder.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The findings provide preliminary support for a post-suppression rebound effect in the auditory domain and further suggest that this effect may be moderated by the emotional properties of the auditory stimulus.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35189964
doi: 10.1186/s40359-022-00751-6
pii: 10.1186/s40359-022-00751-6
pmc: PMC8862307
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
33Subventions
Organisme : Vetenskapsrådet
ID : 2016-02283
Organisme : Vetenskapsrådet
ID : 2016-02283
Organisme : Vetenskapsrådet
ID : 2016-02283
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Eat Behav. 2012 Jan;13(1):62-4
pubmed: 22177399
Behav Res Ther. 2005 Apr;43(4):433-45
pubmed: 15701355
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1992 May;44(4):645-69
pubmed: 1615168
Memory. 2001 Jul-Nov;9(4-6):323-31
pubmed: 11594355
J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):
pubmed: 24403724
Emotion. 2005 Sep;5(3):365-9
pubmed: 16187873
Psychol Rev. 1994 Jan;101(1):34-52
pubmed: 8121959
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1994 Mar;25(1):49-59
pubmed: 7962581
Psychol Res. 2019 Jul;83(5):1070-1082
pubmed: 28916853
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993 Feb;64(2):274-82
pubmed: 8433273
Cogn Psychol. 1980 Jan;12(1):97-136
pubmed: 7351125
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Aug;85(2):348-62
pubmed: 12916575
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2011 Nov;2(6):676-685
pubmed: 22039565
Cogn Emot. 2011 Aug;25(5):805-17
pubmed: 21824022
PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27926
pubmed: 22132170
Behav Res Ther. 1998 Jun;36(6):571-82
pubmed: 9648331
Exp Psychol. 2015;62(1):54-65
pubmed: 25270560
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987 Jul;53(1):5-13
pubmed: 3612492
Int J Audiol. 2008 Nov;47 Suppl 2:S112-8
pubmed: 19012119
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2020 May;15(3):778-793
pubmed: 32286932
Psychol Sci. 2013 Nov 1;24(11):2322-8
pubmed: 24058065
PLoS One. 2013 May 10;8(5):e64540
pubmed: 23675540
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018 Aug;44(8):1303-1312
pubmed: 29629780
Science. 2009 Jul 3;325(5936):48-50
pubmed: 19574380
J Clin Psychol. 2007 Sep;63(9):871-90
pubmed: 17674402
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38660
pubmed: 22685594
Emotion. 2015 Aug;15(4):428-37
pubmed: 26053245
Behav Res Ther. 2011 Nov;49(11):737-47
pubmed: 21864830
Emotion. 2017 Jun;17(4):740-750
pubmed: 28080086
Sci Rep. 2016 Nov 14;6:36989
pubmed: 27841363
Front Psychol. 2015 May 12;6:618
pubmed: 26029149
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 May;68(5):782-92
pubmed: 7776182
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996 Dec;64(6):1152-68
pubmed: 8991302
Rehabil Psychol. 2009 Nov;54(4):381-389
pubmed: 19929119
Q J Exp Psychol. 1980 Feb;32(1):3-25
pubmed: 7367577
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996 Oct;71(4):680-91
pubmed: 8888597
Behav Res Ther. 2004 Oct;42(10):1183-92
pubmed: 15350857
Emotion. 2008 Dec;8(6):820-7
pubmed: 19102593
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
J Behav Med. 2008 Jun;31(3):179-88
pubmed: 18193350
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012 Aug;80(4):649-61
pubmed: 22250855
Sci Rep. 2017 Sep 4;7(1):10363
pubmed: 28871100
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990 Mar;58(3):409-18
pubmed: 2324935
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019 Mar;98:61-70
pubmed: 30629978
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 4;13(1):e0190644
pubmed: 29300763