Literature DB >> 17004472

The influence of spatial separation on divided listening.

Virginia Best1, Frederick J Gallun, Antje Ihlefeld, Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham.   

Abstract

If spatial attention acts like a "spotlight," focusing on one location and excluding others, it may be advantageous to have all targets of interest within the same spatial region. This hypothesis was explored using a task where listeners reported keywords from two simultaneous talkers. In Experiment 1, the two talkers were placed symmetrically about the frontal midline with various angular separations. While there was a small performance improvement for moderate separations, the improvement decreased for larger separations. However, the dependency of the relative talker intensities on spatial configuration accounted for these effects. Experiment 2 tested whether spatial separation improved the intelligibility of each source, an effect that could counteract any degradation in performance as sources fell outside the spatial spotlight of attention. In this experiment, intelligibility of individual sources was equalized across configurations by adding masking noise. Under these conditions, the cost of divided listening (the drop in performance when reporting both messages compared to reporting just one) was smaller when the spatial separation was small. These results suggest that spatial separation enhances the intelligibility of individual sources in a competing pair but increases the cost associated with having to process both sources simultaneously, consistent with the attentional spotlight hypothesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17004472     DOI: 10.1121/1.2234849

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  30 in total

1.  Spatial cues alone produce inaccurate sound segregation: the effect of interaural time differences.

Authors:  Andrew Schwartz; Josh H McDermott; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Aging, spatial cues, and single- versus dual-task performance in competing speech perception.

Authors:  Karen S Helfer; Jamie Chevalier; Richard L Freyman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Auditory attention strategy depends on target linguistic properties and spatial configuration.

Authors:  Daniel R McCloy; Adrian K C Lee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  A sound element gets lost in perceptual competition.

Authors:  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Adrian K C Lee; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-07-05       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Effects of reverberant spatial cues on attention-dependent object formation.

Authors:  Adrian K C Lee; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2008-01-23

6.  The effects of hearing loss and age on the benefit of spatial separation between multiple talkers in reverberant rooms.

Authors:  Nicole Marrone; Christine R Mason; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Tuning in the spatial dimension: evidence from a masked speech identification task.

Authors:  Nicole Marrone; Christine R Mason; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 8.  Attention to memory: orienting attention to sound object representations.

Authors:  Kristina C Backer; Claude Alain
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2013-12-20

9.  Perceiving sequential dependencies in auditory streams.

Authors:  Gerald Kidd; Christine R Mason; Timothy Streeter; Eric R Thompson; Virginia Best; Gregory H Wakefield
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  The effects of cueing temporal and spatial attention on word recognition in a complex listening task in hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Stuart Gatehouse; Michael A Akeroyd
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.