Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Detection of culprit presence in multiple-culprit crimes: A comparison of combined and separate lineup-presentation formats.

PloS one·2026

Same author

Validating a multinomial processing tree model for measuring confidence in lineups using a post-response feedback manipulation.

Cognitive research: principles and implications·2026

Same author

Delays reduce culprit-presence detection but do not affect guessing-based selection in response to lineups.

Scientific reports·2025

Same author

Evidence for age-related differences in culprit-presence detection and guessing-based selection in lineups.

Psychology and aging·2025

Same author

The illusory-truth effect and its absence under accuracy-focused processing are robust across contexts of low and high advertising exposure.

Cognitive research: principles and implications·2025

Same author

The polarity effect in virtual and video see-through mixed reality-better proofreading performance and faster optotype identification with positive display polarity.

Ergonomics·2025

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 6, 2026

Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm

Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm

Published on: May 14, 2014

The time-course of distractor processing in auditory spatial negative priming.

Malte Möller¹, Susanne Mayr², Axel Buchner³

¹Institute of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany. malte.moeller@hhu.de.

Psychological Research

|August 3, 2015

Summary

Auditory spatial negative priming does not involve inhibition. Instead, sound location and identity features are integrated, challenging previous theories of distractor processing.

More Related Videos

A Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate Interference in Working Memory by Distractions and Interruptions

A Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate Interference in Working Memory by Distractions and Interruptions

Published on: July 16, 2015

A Dual Task Procedure Combined with Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Test Attentional Blink for Nontargets

A Dual Task Procedure Combined with Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Test Attentional Blink for Nontargets

Published on: December 5, 2014

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 6, 2026

Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm

Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm

Published on: May 14, 2014

A Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate Interference in Working Memory by Distractions and Interruptions

A Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate Interference in Working Memory by Distractions and Interruptions

Published on: July 16, 2015

A Dual Task Procedure Combined with Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Test Attentional Blink for Nontargets

A Dual Task Procedure Combined with Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Test Attentional Blink for Nontargets

Published on: December 5, 2014

Area of Science:

Cognitive Psychology
Auditory Perception
Neuroscience

Background:

Spatial negative priming involves slower responses to previously occupied locations.
Visual negative priming is linked to inhibitory mechanisms.
Auditory negative priming studies lack evidence for inhibition, suggesting modality differences or timing issues.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate the temporal dynamics of auditory spatial negative priming.
To determine if auditory distractor processing involves inhibition.
To test the feature mismatching hypothesis in auditory tasks.

Main Methods:

Participants localized target sounds with concurrent distractors.
Response-stimulus interval (RSI) varied across groups (600, 1250, 1900 ms).
Performance was assessed between prime-probe presentations.

Main Results:

No evidence for inhibitory distractor processing was found across all RSI conditions.
Results aligned with the feature mismatching hypothesis.
Auditory distractor processing appears non-inhibitory.

Conclusions:

Auditory distractor processing does not utilize inhibitory mechanisms.
Spatial and sound identity features are integrated in auditory tasks.
Findings challenge modality-specific inhibitory theories for negative priming.