"Unattended, distracting or irrelevant": Theoretical implications of terminological choices in auditory selective attention research.

For seventy years, auditory selective attention research has focused on studying the cognitive mechanisms of prioritizing the processing a 'main' task-relevant stimulus, in the presence of 'other' stimuli. However, a closer look at this body of literature reveals deep empirical inconsistencies and theoretical confusion regarding the extent to which this 'other' stimulus is processed. We argue that many key debates regarding attention arise, at least in part, from inappropriate terminological choices for experimental variables that may not accurately map onto the cognitive constructs they are meant to describe. Here we critically review the more common or disruptive terminological ambiguities, differentiate between methodology-based and theory-derived terms, and unpack the theoretical assumptions underlying different terminological choices. Particularly, we offer an in-depth analysis of the terms 'unattended' and 'distractor' and demonstrate how their use can lead to conflicting theoretical inferences. We also offer a framework for thinking about terminology in a more productive and precise way, in hope of fostering more productive debates and promoting more nuanced and accurate cognitive models of selective attention.