Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug 2;2(1):21.
doi: 10.5334/joc.77.

Task Difficulty Modulates the Disrupting Effects of Oral Respiration on Visual Search Performance

Naoto Yoshimura  1   2 , Fumiya Yonemitsu  1   2 , Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos  3 , Atsunori Ariga  4 , Yuki Yamada  5
Affiliations

Task Difficulty Modulates the Disrupting Effects of Oral Respiration on Visual Search Performance

Naoto Yoshimura et al. J Cogn. .

Abstract

Previous research has suggested that oral respiration may disturb cognitive function and health. The present study investigated whether oral respiration negatively affects visual attentional processing during a visual search task. Participants performed a visual search task in the following three breathing conditions: wearing a nasal plug, wearing surgical tape over their mouths, or no modification (oral vs. nasal vs. control). The participants searched for a target stimulus within different set sizes of distractors in three search conditions (orientation vs colour vs conjunction). Experiment 1 did not show any effect due to respiration. Experiment 2 rigorously manipulated the search efficiency and found that participants required more time to find a poorly discriminable target during oral breathing compared with other breathing styles, which was due to the heightened intercept under this condition. Because the intercept is an index of pre-search sensory processing or motor response in visual search, such cognitive processing was likely disrupted by oral respiration. These results suggest that oral respiration and attentional processing during inefficient visual search share a common cognitive resource.

Keywords: Action; Attention; Visual search.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Experimental manipulation. A participant wearing a (a) strip of surgical tape or (b) nasal plug.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Three sample displays from Experiment 1. (a) Different colour search for target, and distractor in set size 9. (b) Different orientation search for target, and distractor in set size 31. (c) Different orientation and colour (conjunction) search for target, and distractor in set size 31.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean RTs for each target-feature plotted as a function of breathing style and set size in target-present trials for Experiment 1. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Mean RTs for each target-feature plotted as a function of breathing style and set size in target-absent trials for Experiment 1. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Sample displays for each set size from Experiment 2. The left array of stimuli indicates the display in which the target is tilted at 6° in set size 37. The right array of stimuli indicates the display in which the target is tilted at 4° in set size 19.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Mean RTs for each orientation contrast plotted as a function of breathing style and set size in target-present trials for Experiment 2. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Mean RTs for each orientation contrast plotted as a function of breathing style and set size in target-absent trials for Experiment 2. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Anderson, E. J., Mannan, S. K., Husain, M., Rees, G., Sumner, P., Mort, D. J., McRobbie, D., & Kennard, C. (2007). Involvement of prefrontal cortex in visual search. Experimental Brain Research, 180(2), 289–302. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-0860-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arch, J. J., & Craske, M. G. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness: Emotion regulation following a focused breathing induction. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(12), 1849–1858. DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.12.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437–443. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bacon, W. F., & Egeth, H. E. (1994). Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture. Perception & Psychophysics, 55(5), 485–496. DOI: 10.3758/BF03205306 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bichot, N. P., Heard, M. T., DeGennaro, E. M., & Desimone, R. (2015). A source for feature-based attention in the prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 88(4), 832–844. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.10.001 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources