Literature DB >> 19062861

Disentangling the effects of spatial cues on selection and formation of auditory objects.

Antje Ihlefeld1, Barbara Shinn-Cunningham.   

Abstract

When competing sources come from different directions, a desired target is easier to hear than when the sources are co-located. How much of this improvement is the result of spatial attention rather than improved perceptual segregation of the competing sources is not well understood. Here, listeners' attention was directed to spatial or nonspatial cues when they listened for a target masked by a competing message. A preceding cue signaled the target timbre, location, or both timbre and location. Spatial separation improved performance when the cue indicated the target location, or both the location and timbre, but not when the cue only indicated the target timbre. However, response errors were influenced by spatial configuration in all conditions. Both attention and streaming contributed to spatial effects when listeners actively attended to location. In contrast, when attention was directed to a nonspatial cue, spatial separation primarily appeared to improve the streaming of auditory objects across time. Thus, when attention is focused on location, spatial separation appears to improve both object selection and object formation; when attention is directed to nonspatial cues, separation affects object formation. These results highlight the need to distinguish between these separate mechanisms when considering how observers cope with complex auditory scenes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19062861      PMCID: PMC9014243          DOI: 10.1121/1.2973185

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


  47 in total

1.  Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in selective attention.

Authors:  C J Darwin; R W Hukin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Psychophysical customization of directional transfer functions for virtual sound localization.

Authors:  J C Middlebrooks; E A Macpherson; Z A Onsan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition.

Authors:  R L Freyman; U Balakrishnan; K S Helfer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers.

Authors:  Christopher J Darwin; Douglas S Brungart; Brian D Simpson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effects of location, frequency region, and time course of selective attention on auditory scene analysis.

Authors:  Rhodri Cusack; John Deeks; Genevieve Aikman; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  The spatial unmasking of speech: evidence for within-channel processing of interaural time delay.

Authors:  Barrie A Edmonds; John F Culling
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  The advantage of knowing where to listen.

Authors:  Gerald Kidd; Tanya L Arbogast; Christine R Mason; Frederick J Gallun
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  The future of hearing aid technology.

Authors:  Brent Edwards
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2007-03

Review 9.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention.

Authors:  R Desimone; J Duncan
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 12.449

10.  An internet survey of individuals with hearing loss regarding assistive listening devices.

Authors:  Judith Harkins; Paula Tucker
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2007-06
View more
  25 in total

1.  Influence of task-relevant and task-irrelevant feature continuity on selective auditory attention.

Authors:  Ross K Maddox; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-11-29

2.  Spatial selective auditory attention in the presence of reverberant energy: individual differences in normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Dorea Ruggles; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-12-03

3.  Spatial stream segregation by auditory cortical neurons.

Authors:  John C Middlebrooks; Peter Bremen
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Auditory spatial attention representations in the human cerebral cortex.

Authors:  Lingqiang Kong; Samantha W Michalka; Maya L Rosen; Summer L Sheremata; Jascha D Swisher; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; David C Somers
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2012-11-23       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  Informational masking and spatial hearing in listeners with and without unilateral hearing loss.

Authors:  Ann M Rothpletz; Frederic L Wightman; Doris J Kistler
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Attention modifies sound level detection in young children.

Authors:  Elyse S Sussman; Mitchell Steinschneider
Journal:  Dev Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 6.464

7.  Auditory attentional control and selection during cocktail party listening.

Authors:  Kevin T Hill; Lee M Miller
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2009-07-02       Impact factor: 5.357

8.  Children's understanding of instructions presented in noise and reverberation.

Authors:  Dawna E Lewis; Crystal M Manninen; Daniel L Valente; Nicholas A Smith
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.493

Review 9.  Selective attention in normal and impaired hearing.

Authors:  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Virginia Best
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-10-30

10.  Interaural level differences do not suffice for restoring spatial release from masking in simulated cochlear implant listening.

Authors:  Antje Ihlefeld; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.