Literature DB >> 20139463

Improved segregation of simultaneous talkers differentially affects perceptual and cognitive capacity demands for recognizing speech in competing speech.

Alexander L Francis1.   

Abstract

Perception of speech in competing speech is facilitated by spatial separation of the target and distracting speech, but this benefit may arise at either a perceptual or a cognitive level of processing. Load theory predicts different effects of perceptual and cognitive (working memory) load on selective attention in flanker task contexts, suggesting that this paradigm may be used to distinguish levels of interference. Two experiments examined interference from competing speech during a word recognition task under different perceptual and working memory loads in a dual-task paradigm. Listeners identified words produced by a talker of one gender while ignoring a talker of the other gender. Perceptual load was manipulated using a nonspeech response cue, with response conditional upon either one or two acoustic features (pitch and modulation). Memory load was manipulated with a secondary task consisting of one or six visually presented digits. In the first experiment, the target and distractor were presented at different virtual locations (0 degrees and 90 degrees , respectively), whereas in the second, all the stimuli were presented from the same apparent location. Results suggest that spatial cues improve resistance to distraction in part by reducing working memory demand.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20139463     DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.2.501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  17 in total

1.  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

2.  Lexical influences on competing speech perception in younger, middle-aged, and older adults.

Authors:  Karen S Helfer; Alexandra Jesse
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Cross-modal perceptual load: the impact of modality and individual differences.

Authors:  Rajwant Sandhu; Benjamin James Dyson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Integrating cognitive and peripheral factors in predicting hearing-aid processing effectiveness.

Authors:  James M Kates; Kathryn H Arehart; Pamela E Souza
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  The role of syntax in maintaining the integrity of streams of speech.

Authors:  Gerald Kidd; Christine R Mason; Virginia Best
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Extrinsic Cognitive Load Impairs Spoken Word Recognition in High- and Low-Predictability Sentences.

Authors:  Cynthia R Hunter; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Musical experience and the aging auditory system: implications for cognitive abilities and hearing speech in noise.

Authors:  Alexandra Parbery-Clark; Dana L Strait; Samira Anderson; Emily Hittner; Nina Kraus
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Extrinsic cognitive load impairs low-level speech perception.

Authors:  Sven L Mattys; Katharine Barden; Arthur G Samuel
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-06

9.  Load-induced inattentional deafness.

Authors:  Dana Raveh; Nilli Lavie
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  How age and linguistic competence alter the interplay of perceptual and cognitive factors when listening to conversations in a noisy environment.

Authors:  Meital Avivi-Reich; Meredyth Daneman; Bruce A Schneider
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2014-02-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.