Literature DB >> 24047385

"Change deafness" arising from inter-feature masking within a single auditory object.

Nicolas Barascud1, Timothy D Griffiths, David McAlpine, Maria Chait.   

Abstract

Our ability to detect prominent changes in complex acoustic scenes depends not only on the ear's sensitivity but also on the capacity of the brain to process competing incoming information. Here, employing a combination of psychophysics and magnetoencephalography (MEG), we investigate listeners' sensitivity in situations when two features belonging to the same auditory object change in close succession. The auditory object under investigation is a sequence of tone pips characterized by a regularly repeating frequency pattern. Signals consisted of an initial, regularly alternating sequence of three short (60 msec) pure tone pips (in the form ABCABC…) followed by a long pure tone with a frequency that is either expected based on the on-going regular pattern ("LONG expected"-i.e., "LONG-expected") or constitutes a pattern violation ("LONG-unexpected"). The change in LONG-expected is manifest as a change in duration (when the long pure tone exceeds the established duration of a tone pip), whereas the change in LONG-unexpected is manifest as a change in both the frequency pattern and a change in the duration. Our results reveal a form of "change deafness," in that although changes in both the frequency pattern and the expected duration appear to be processed effectively by the auditory system-cortical signatures of both changes are evident in the MEG data-listeners often fail to detect changes in the frequency pattern when that change is closely followed by a change in duration. By systematically manipulating the properties of the changing features and measuring behavioral and MEG responses, we demonstrate that feature changes within the same auditory object, which occur close together in time, appear to compete for perceptual resources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24047385      PMCID: PMC4346202          DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00481

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci        ISSN: 0898-929X            Impact factor:   3.225


  45 in total

1.  The attentional blink is immune to masking-induced data limits.

Authors:  E N McLaughlin; D I Shore; R M Klein
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2001-02

Review 2.  Distracted and confused?: selective attention under load.

Authors:  Nilli Lavie
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Directed attention eliminates 'change deafness' in complex auditory scenes.

Authors:  Ranmalee Eramudugolla; Dexter R F Irvine; Ken I McAnally; Russell L Martin; Jason B Mattingley
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2005-06-21       Impact factor: 10.834

4.  Separate representation of stimulus frequency, intensity, and duration in auditory sensory memory: an event-related potential and dipole-model analysis.

Authors:  M H Giard; J Lavikahen; K Reinikainen; F Perrin; O Bertrand; J Pernier; R Näätänen
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Restricted attentional capacity within but not between sensory modalities.

Authors:  J Duncan; S Martens; R Ward
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1997-06-19       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Brain indices of automatic pattern processing.

Authors:  C Alain; D L Woods; K H Ogawa
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  1994-12-30       Impact factor: 1.837

7.  Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns.

Authors:  B C Moore; B R Glasberg
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Temporal window shape as a function of frequency and level.

Authors:  C J Plack; B C Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Detection of appearing and disappearing objects in complex acoustic scenes.

Authors:  Francisco Cervantes Constantino; Leyla Pinggera; Supathum Paranamana; Makio Kashino; Maria Chait
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-27       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  An information theoretic characterisation of auditory encoding.

Authors:  Tobias Overath; Rhodri Cusack; Sukhbinder Kumar; Katharina von Kriegstein; Jason D Warren; Manon Grube; Robert P Carlyon; Timothy D Griffiths
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2007-10-23       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  3 in total

1.  Brain responses in humans reveal ideal observer-like sensitivity to complex acoustic patterns.

Authors:  Nicolas Barascud; Marcus T Pearce; Timothy D Griffiths; Karl J Friston; Maria Chait
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Adaptive Efficient Coding of Correlated Acoustic Properties.

Authors:  Kai Lu; Wanyi Liu; Kelsey Dutta; Peng Zan; Jonathan B Fritz; Shihab A Shamma
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Is predictability salient? A study of attentional capture by auditory patterns.

Authors:  Rosy Southwell; Anna Baumann; Cécile Gal; Nicolas Barascud; Karl Friston; Maria Chait
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-01-02       Impact factor: 6.237

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.