Literature DB >> 18524512

Separate contributions of enhanced and suppressed sensitivity to the auditory attentional filter.

Michael N Tan1, Donald Robertson, Geoffrey R Hammond.   

Abstract

Three experiments used a probe-signal method to determine the extent to which exposure-related changes in sensitivity result from an immediate effect of stimulation and from a cumulative effect of repeated stimulation. In the first experiment, a fixed-frequency cue was followed by a same-frequency target (on 75% of trials) or a different-frequency probe (on 25% of trials). In the second experiment, a cue frequency selected randomly from a set of five was followed by a same-frequency target, or one of four different-frequency probes. Targets and probes were randomly selected independently of the cue frequency and all were equiprobable (20%). Target detection showed an average 3.4 dB advantage over probe detection. In the third experiment, tones with a randomly selected frequency were detected better when cued by a tone of the same-frequency than when presented without a prior cue. The cued tones showed an average 2.6 dB advantage over the uncued tones. Together, these results suggest that two mechanisms contribute to changes in sensitivity following auditory stimulation: first, an immediate enhancement of target detection produced by an auditory cue and second, a suppression of non-target frequencies caused by the expectation of a target.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18524512     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2008.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  10 in total

1.  Octave effect in auditory attention.

Authors:  Tobias Borra; Huib Versnel; Chantal Kemner; A John van Opstal; Raymond van Ee
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Auditory attentional filter in the absence of masking noise.

Authors:  Elan Selvi Anandan; Ruby Husain; Kumar Seluakumaran
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-01-03       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Functional Interplay Between the Putative Measures of Rostral and Caudal Efferent Regulation of Speech Perception in Noise.

Authors:  Sandeep Maruthy; U Ajith Kumar; G Nike Gnanateja
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-04-26

Review 4.  Dimension-selective attention as a possible driver of dynamic, context-dependent re-weighting in speech processing.

Authors:  Lori L Holt; Adam T Tierney; Giada Guerra; Aeron Laffere; Frederic Dick
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  The relationship between MOC reflex and masked threshold.

Authors:  Angela Garinis; Lynne Werner; Carolina Abdala
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-08-26       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Short-term synaptic plasticity regulates the level of olivocochlear inhibition to auditory hair cells.

Authors:  Jimena Ballestero; Javier Zorrilla de San Martín; Juan Goutman; Ana Belén Elgoyhen; Paul A Fuchs; Eleonora Katz
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 7.  The role of the medial olivocochlear reflex in psychophysical masking and intensity resolution in humans: a review.

Authors:  Skyler G Jennings
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 2.974

8.  Inconsistent Effect of Arousal on Early Auditory Perception.

Authors:  Anna C Bolders; Guido P H Band; Pieter Jan M Stallen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-03-29

9.  Robust and Efficient Online Auditory Psychophysics.

Authors:  Sijia Zhao; Christopher A Brown; Lori L Holt; Frederic Dick
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

10.  Attentional and Contextual Priors in Sound Perception.

Authors:  Michael Wolmetz; Mounya Elhilali
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.