Literature DB >> 22124889

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

Ross K Maddox1, Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham.   

Abstract

Past studies have explored the relative strengths of auditory features in a selective attention task by pitting features against one another and asking listeners to report the words perceived in a given sentence. While these studies show that the continuity of competing features affects streaming, they did not address whether the influence of specific features is modulated by volitionally directed attention. Here, we explored whether the continuity of a task-irrelevant feature affects the ability to selectively report one of two competing speech streams when attention is specifically directed to a different feature. Sequences of simultaneous pairs of spoken digits were presented in which exactly one digit of each pair matched a primer phrase in pitch and exactly one digit of each pair matched the primer location. Within a trial, location and pitch were randomly paired; they either were consistent with each other from digit to digit or were switched (e.g., the sequence from the primer's location changed pitch across digits). In otherwise identical blocks, listeners were instructed to report digits matching the primer either in location or in pitch. Listeners were told to ignore the irrelevant feature, if possible, in order to perform well. Listener responses depended on task instructions, proving that top-down attention alters how a subject performs the task. Performance improved when the separation of the target and masker in the task-relevant feature increased. Importantly, the values of the task-irrelevant feature also influenced performance in some cases. Specifically, when instructed to attend location, listeners performed worse as the separation between target and masker pitch increased, especially when the spatial separation between digits was small. These results indicate that task-relevant and task-irrelevant features are perceptually bound together: continuity of task-irrelevant features influences selective attention in an automatic, obligatory manner, consistent with the idea that auditory attention operates on objects.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22124889      PMCID: PMC3254717          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-011-0299-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  26 in total

1.  Auditory objects of attention: the role of interaural time differences.

Authors:  C J Darwin; R W Hukin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Tracking an object through feature space.

Authors:  E Blaser; Z W Pylyshyn; A O Holcombe
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-11-09       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic, and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention.

Authors:  C J Darwin; R W Hukin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Does auditory streaming require attention? Evidence from attentional selectivity in short-term memory.

Authors:  William J Macken; Sébastien Tremblay; Robert J Houghton; Alastair P Nicholls; Dylan M Jones
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  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

6.  The effects of spatial separation in distance on the informational and energetic masking of a nearby speech signal.

Authors:  Douglas S Brungart; Brian D Simpson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  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

8.  Localizing nearby sound sources in a classroom: binaural room impulse responses.

Authors:  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Norbert Kopco; Tara J Martin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Effects of attention and unilateral neglect on auditory stream segregation.

Authors:  R P Carlyon; R Cusack; J M Foxton; I H Robertson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 10.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention.

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

View more
  21 in total

1.  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

2.  Influence of preparation time and pitch separation in switching of auditory attention between streams.

Authors:  Eric Larson; Adrian K C Lee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Bottom-up influences of voice continuity in focusing selective auditory attention.

Authors:  Scott Bressler; Salwa Masud; Hari Bharadwaj; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-03-16

4.  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

5.  Effects of talker continuity and speech rate on auditory working memory.

Authors:  Sung-Joo Lim; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Tyler K Perrachione
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 6.  Cortical and Sensory Causes of Individual Differences in Selective Attention Ability Among Listeners With Normal Hearing Thresholds.

Authors:  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 7.  Active inference, selective attention, and the cocktail party problem.

Authors:  Emma Holmes; Thomas Parr; Timothy D Griffiths; Karl J Friston
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 8.989

8.  Influence of talker discontinuity on cortical dynamics of auditory spatial attention.

Authors:  Golbarg Mehraei; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham; Torsten Dau
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  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

10.  Competing sound sources reveal spatial effects in cortical processing.

Authors:  Ross K Maddox; Cyrus P Billimoria; Ben P Perrone; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Kamal Sen
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 8.029

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.