The impact of attentional demand on the motor interference effect induced by dangerous stimuli
Abstract
The mechanisms by which attentional demand modulates the motor interference effect induced by dangerous stimuli remain debated. To test the competing predictions of the limited capacity theory and the signal suppression hypothesis, we manipulated attentional demand (low vs . high) and interfering stimulus type (high-arousal dangerous, medium-arousal dangerous, low-arousal neutral) within a Go/NoGo task combined with an additional singleton paradigm. Twenty-five healthy participants were recruited; after applying the a priori exclusion criterion, 24 were retained for analysis. Under low attentional demand, reaction times (RTs) did not differ across interfering stimulus types. Under high attentional demand, RTs were significantly longer for high-arousal dangerous stimuli than for low-arousal neutral stimuli and were marginally longer for medium-arousal dangerous stimuli than for low-arousal neutral stimuli. Error rates did not differ significantly across interfering stimulus types under either attentional-demand condition. The RT pattern was consistent with greater interference from more arousing dangerous stimuli under high attentional demand. These findings are consistent with the signal suppression hypothesis: when attentional resources are sufficient, task-irrelevant dangerous stimuli may be more effectively suppressed; when resources are taxed by a demanding primary task, suppression may be compromised, allowing dangerous stimuli greater access to task processing. However, attentional demand covaried with target stimulus type, so the observed interaction cannot be attributed to attentional demand alone; the equiprobable Go/NoGo design likewise precludes conclusions about motor inhibitory control. Boundary conditions and alternative interpretations are discussed.
Related
- Voice and linguistic features support early attentional filtering of irrelevant stimuli
- Assessment of Interference in CIEDs Exposed to Magnetic Fields at Power Frequencies: Induced Voltage Analysis and Measurement
- DailyBeat: reliable cardiac sensing under self-induced dynamic interference using mmWave radar
- Water, lithium and sodium: watch out for dangerous injuries
- Mapping potential for human encounters with dangerous large mammals across a community-led Wildlife Management Area in southern Tanzania based on overlapping signs of recent activity
BibTeX
@article{fan2026impact,
title = {{The impact of attentional demand on the motor interference effect induced by dangerous stimuli}},
author = {Shuyan Fan and Yang Gao and Congqian Xue and Wenhan Zhang and Kuiyuan Qin and Peng Liu},
journal = {PeerJ},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.7717/peerj.21820},
url = {https://peerj.com/articles/21820},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - The impact of attentional demand on the motor interference effect induced by dangerous stimuli
AU - Shuyan Fan
AU - Yang Gao
AU - Congqian Xue
AU - Wenhan Zhang
AU - Kuiyuan Qin
AU - Peng Liu
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/13
JO - PeerJ
DO - 10.7717/peerj.21820
UR - https://peerj.com/articles/21820
AB - The mechanisms by which attentional demand modulates the motor interference effect induced by dangerous stimuli remain debated. To test the competing predictions of the limited capacity theory and the signal suppression hypothesis, we manipulated attentional demand (low vs . high) and interfering stimulus type (high-arousal dangerous, medium-arousal dangerous, low-arousal neutral) within a Go/NoGo task combined with an additional singleton paradigm. Twenty-five healthy participants were recruited; after applying the a priori exclusion criterion, 24 were retained for analysis. Under low attentional demand, reaction times (RTs) did not differ across interfering stimulus types. Under high attentional demand, RTs were significantly longer for high-arousal dangerous stimuli than for low-arousal neutral stimuli and were marginally longer for medium-arousal dangerous stimuli than for low-arousal neutral stimuli. Error rates did not differ significantly across interfering stimulus types under either attentional-demand condition. The RT pattern was consistent with greater interference from more arousing dangerous stimuli under high attentional demand. These findings are consistent with the signal suppression hypothesis: when attentional resources are sufficient, task-irrelevant dangerous stimuli may be more effectively suppressed; when resources are taxed by a demanding primary task, suppression may be compromised, allowing dangerous stimuli greater access to task processing. However, attentional demand covaried with target stimulus type, so the observed interaction cannot be attributed to attentional demand alone; the equiprobable Go/NoGo design likewise precludes conclusions about motor inhibitory control. Boundary conditions and alternative interpretations are discussed.
SN - 2167-8359
ER -