Self-objectification has consequences such as continual body and appearance monitoring and requires cognitive attention that can interfere with task performance.
Initially described as task-induced deactivations during goal-directed paradigms of high attentional load, the unresolved functionality of default mode regions has long been assumed to interfere with task performance.
These sensations can nonspecifically interfere with task performance via distraction or subject biasing, contaminating the results.
Where this occurs it may interfere with task-specific neural activity and disrupt performance [17], [19].
In order to ensure that the difficulty of imagining complex stimuli would not interfere with task performance, we used a fixed-order, within-subject design in which the aftereffect task with perceived stimuli preceded that with imagined stimuli.
The presence of MMN, P3a, and behavioral impairment in task performance suggests that deviations that are not noticed by the subjects can still interfere with task-related processes, activating a similar network as easily detectable concrete rule violations[17].
Thus, although the position of the distracter clearly indicated that its identity was irrelevant, signals resulting from the involuntary processing of this foil stimulus should interfere with task performance.
It is of interest whether violations of abstract rules can also interfere with task-related processing and whether the network involved includes supratemporal, parietal and frontal areas which are known to be involved in auditory distraction[16], [17].
Unexpectedly, picture content did not interfere with task performance on trials depicting negative IAPS slides.
