Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

Inattentional Deafness: Visual Load Leads to Time-Specific Suppression of Auditory Evoked Responses

Katharine Molloy, Timothy D. Griffiths, Maria Chait and Nilli Lavie
Journal of Neuroscience 9 December 2015, 35 (49) 16046-16054; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2931-15.2015
Katharine Molloy
1Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, United Kingdom,
2Ear Institute, University College London, London WC1X 8EE, United Kingdom,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Timothy D. Griffiths
3Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom, and
4Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne NE2 4HH, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maria Chait
2Ear Institute, University College London, London WC1X 8EE, United Kingdom,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nilli Lavie
1Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, United Kingdom,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Task paradigm for Experiment 1. Each trial began with a fixation cross presented on screen for 1000 ms. Subsequently, a visual search of either low (display a) or high (display b) perceptual load was presented for 100 ms. On a random selection of half the trials, the visual display was accompanied by a 100 ms pure tone. After stimulus presentation, a blank screen was displayed for 1900 ms, during which time participants made a speeded response as to the identity of the target letter (X or Z, displays a and b in the figure both show an example of a Z target).

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Evoked responses before and after DSS analysis. A, Data for the auditory alone condition and the low- and high-load visual and auditory conditions (AVL, AVH) before DSS were applied (left, grand RMS over auditory sensors; right, source analysis). The RMS plot demonstrates a weak auditory signal in the AVL and AVH conditions, likely due to an overlap with concurrent visual activity. Source analysis confirms dispersed activation in the AVL and AVH conditions relative to the A responses. There was additional activity in the visual cortex (BA17 and BA18) bilaterally (not visible due to slice selection) that had activity to a similar extent as that shown in C. B, The same conditions, but after the DSS analysis was applied. The auditory responses across the three conditions are similar in shape (but with a clear effect of load, discussed further in Fig. 3). Source analysis confirmed clear auditory activity, with no remaining activity in the visual cortex. C, Data from the VL and VH conditions, when the visual stimuli were presented without an accompanying tone. D, DSS-derived visual response from the AVL and AVH trials. Both the evoked responses and the source analysis results are comparable to those in C. The load effects reported here are based on the data in D.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Load effect on visual and auditory responses. A, Control (passive viewing) data. No significant differences were observed. B, Visual evoked response from the experimental group (conditions AVL and AVH). C, Auditory evoked response from the experimental group (conditions AVL and AVH). A–C, Left, Grand RMS responses across selected visual or auditory channels, for low- and high-load conditions. Shaded areas indicate intervals where response amplitudes differ significantly (see Materials and Methods). Inset, Scalp field maps of a representative participant at the peaks of the vM100 (A, B) and aM100 and P3 (C) responses. Right, Source localizations, computed from t = 70–170 ms. B and C show areas where there was a significant difference between activation in low and high load; A shows aggregate activity for low and high load, since there were no areas which showed a difference in the contrast.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Source localization

    ConditionAnatomical descriptionBrodmann area(s)Peak MNI coordinatesp value (FWE corrected)
    xyz
    Visual low-load activity, 100–170 msBilateral cuneus, precuneus, lingual gyrusBA17, BA18, BA19−12−98−10<0.001
    Visual high-load activity, 100–170 msBilateral cuneus, precuneus, lingual gyrusBA17, BA18, BA19−6−82−180.001
    Auditory alone activity, 100–170 msLeft STGBA21, BA22, BA42−60−2880.012
    Right STGBA21, BA22, BA4264−3480.012
    Auditory activity low load, 100–170 msLeft STG, MTGBA21, BA22, BA42−62−264<0.001
    Right STG, MTGBA21, BA22, BA4252−348<0.001
    Auditory activity high load, 100–170 msLeft STG, MTGBA21, BA22, BA42−54−3080.036
    Right STG, MTGBA21, BA22, BA4256−44140.032
    Left IFGBA11, BA47−4628−140.031
    Right IFGBA11, BA474826−100.031
    Auditory activity low load, 250–300 msLeft STG, MTGBA21, BA22, BA42−62−264<0.001
    Right STG, MTGBA21, BA22, BA4252−348<0.001
    Auditory activity high load, 250–300 msLeft STG, MTGBA21, BA22, BA42−54−3080.036
    Right STG, MTGBA21, BA22, BA4256−44140.032
    Left IFGBA11, BA47−4628−140.031
    Right IFGBA11, BA474826−100.031
    • For each condition, clusters which were significant at p < 0.05 (FWE corrected) are detailed. Each entry gives the anatomical description of the region(s) the cluster covers, the Brodmann area(s) in the cluster, its peak MNI coordinates, and the p value associated with the cluster.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Source localization contrasts

    ContrastAnatomical descriptionBrodmann area(s)Peak MNI coordinatesp value (FWE corrected)
    xyz
    Visual activity, 100–170 ms, high load > low loadRight lingual gyrusBA1830−94−12<0.001
    Left postcentral gyrusBA2, BA3−32−68500.027
    Right SMGBA4058−52300.030
    Left SMGBA40−48−48200.047
    Right SPL/IPSBA744−32600.044
    Auditory activity, 100–170 ms, low load > high loadLeft MTG, STSBA21−66−26−6<0.001
    Right MTG, STSBA2150−36−6<0.001
    Auditory activity, 250–300 ms, low load > high loadLeft STG, MTGBA22, BA41−48−2440.012
    Right STG, MTGBA22, BA4146−4020.004
    • The table shows regions where contrasts between high and low load indicate significant differences in activation. For each contrast, clusters that were significant at p < 0.05 (FWE corrected) are detailed. Each entry gives the anatomical description of the region(s) the cluster covers, the Brodmann area(s) in the cluster, its peak MNI coordinates, and the p value associated with the cluster.

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 35 (49)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 35, Issue 49
9 Dec 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Inattentional Deafness: Visual Load Leads to Time-Specific Suppression of Auditory Evoked Responses
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Inattentional Deafness: Visual Load Leads to Time-Specific Suppression of Auditory Evoked Responses
Katharine Molloy, Timothy D. Griffiths, Maria Chait, Nilli Lavie
Journal of Neuroscience 9 December 2015, 35 (49) 16046-16054; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2931-15.2015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Inattentional Deafness: Visual Load Leads to Time-Specific Suppression of Auditory Evoked Responses
Katharine Molloy, Timothy D. Griffiths, Maria Chait, Nilli Lavie
Journal of Neuroscience 9 December 2015, 35 (49) 16046-16054; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2931-15.2015
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • attentional load
  • auditory
  • MEG
  • visual

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Articles

  • Memory Retrieval Has a Dynamic Influence on the Maintenance Mechanisms That Are Sensitive to ζ-Inhibitory Peptide (ZIP)
  • Neurophysiological Evidence for a Cortical Contribution to the Wakefulness-Related Drive to Breathe Explaining Hypocapnia-Resistant Ventilation in Humans
  • Monomeric Alpha-Synuclein Exerts a Physiological Role on Brain ATP Synthase
Show more Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Regional Excitatory-Inhibitory Balance Relates to Self-Reference Effect on Recollection via the Precuneus/Posterior Cingulate Cortex–Medial Prefrontal Cortex Connectivity
  • NEOCORTICAL AND HIPPOCAMPAL THETA OSCILLATIONS TRACK AUDIOVISUAL INTEGRATION AND REPLAY OF SPEECH MEMORIES
  • Anchoring functional connectivity to individual sulcal morphology yields insights in a pediatric study of reasoning
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.