Auditory attention strategy depends on target linguistic properties and spatial configuration

McCloy, Daniel; Lee, Adrian K. C.

doi:10.1121/1.4922328

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike the dual-task conditions, there was little congruency effect for the single-task conditions. A similar difference has been reported for an auditory detection task (McCloy & Lee, 2015). This divergence has been studied in the more cognitive speeded dual-task literature (e.g.…”

Section: Relation To the Prior Literaturesupporting

confidence: 80%

“…This is for both single-task conditions and dual-task conditions, and is in contrast with Gabor detection where there were larger congruency effects for the dual-task conditions. To our knowledge, the most similar result are the reduced congruency effects found in audition by McCloy and Lee (2015) for semantic versus phonetic tasks.…”

Section: Relation To the Prior Literaturesupporting

confidence: 59%

“…For the accuracy dual tasks with a common perceptual judgment, there have been only a few studies that have measured congruency effects. Perhaps the earliest was a set of auditory studies by Sorkin and colleagues (Gilliom & Sorkin, 1974;Sorkin, Pastore & Pohlmann, 1972;Sorkin, Pohlmann & Gilliom, 1973;and, Sorkin, Pohlmann & Woods, 1976) and a more recent auditory example is McCloy and Lee (2015). A good example from the visual literature is Bonnel, et al (1992).…”

Section: Previous Research On Congruency Effects In Dual Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For auditory word identification tasks it has been extensively reported (e.g. McCloy & Lee, 2015). Surprisingly, it has only recently been measured with an accuracy dual task in vision (White et al, 2018 described below).…”

Section: Relation To the Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Divided Attention in Perception: A Unified Analysis of Dual-Task Deficits and Congruency Effects

Palmer

White

Moore

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How well can one perceive simultaneous stimuli at two widely spaced visual locations?Are the stimuli processed independently? If not, does the dependency affect perception, disrupt signals in later stages, or both? To address these questions, we measured effects of divided attention using a dual-task paradigm with stimuli presented in noise on either side of fixation.This paradigm was applied to detecting Gabor patches and to the semantic categorization of words. We measured dual-task deficits which are a decline in mean performance for a dual task compared to a single task. There was such a deficit for categorizing two words but relatively little deficit for detecting two Gabors. We also measured congruency effects which are when performance at one location depends on whether the stimulus at the other location requires the same response. There was such a congruency effect for detecting two Gabors but relatively little congruency effect for categorizing two words. Further experiments were consistent with the dual-task deficit in word categorization being perceptual, but the congruency effect in Gabor detection being due to later processes. Results of additional experiments showed that the congruency effect was consistent with either graded selection errors or with all-or-none selection followed by graded interactive processing. To answer our opening question: for Gabor detection, perceptual processes were largely independent but later processes caused congruency effects; for word categorization, perceptual processes had capacity limits but even in combination with later processes caused relatively little congruency effects. In summary, there was evidence for two different kinds of dependency. Such complementary dependencies are inconsistent with theories of divided attention that depend on a single dependency such as a single resource or single source of interactive processing.

show abstract

Section: Relation To the Prior Literaturesupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Relation To the Prior Literaturesupporting

confidence: 59%

Section: Previous Research On Congruency Effects In Dual Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relation To the Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Divided Attention in Perception: A Unified Analysis of Dual-Task Deficits and Congruency Effects

Palmer

White

Moore

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, when more detailed spatial information can be provided regarding the location of each speaker, as in the case of audio-visual speech (Blackburn et al, 2019) or spatial cueing, spatial attention might be engaged. Indeed, (Kopco et al, 2010) demonstrated that giving participants information regarding the location of potential maskers assisted selective-attention performance, although the benefit depended on the specific spatial configuration (see also Jones and Litovsky 2008; McCloy and Lee 2015). Similarly, (Ihlefeld and Shinn-Cunningham, 2008a) report an advantage of spatial separation on selective attention performance, but only when participants were explicitly told to attend to a particular location, whereas when attention was directed towards an acoustic feature, no advantage was observed for spatial separation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Spatial Separation on Selective and Distributed Attention to Speech

Pinto

Agmon

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Processing speech in multi-speaker environments poses substantial challenges to the human perceptual and attention system. Moreover, different contexts may require employing different listening strategies. For instance, in some cases individuals pay attention Selectively to one speaker and attempt to ignore all other task-irrelevant sounds, whereas other contexts may require listeners to Distribute their attention among several speakers. Spatial and spectral acoustic cues both play an important role in assisting listeners to segregate concurrent speakers. However, how these cues interact with varying demands for allocating top-down attention is less clear. In the current study, we test and compare how spatial cues are utilized to benefit performance on these different types of attentional tasks. To this end, participants listened to a concoction of two or four speakers, presented either as emanating from different locations in space or with no spatial separation. In separate trials, participants were required to employ different listening strategies, and detect a target-word spoken either by one pre-defined speaker (Selective Attention) or spoken by any of the speakers (Distributed Attention). Results indicate that the presence of spatial cues improved performance, particularly in the two-speaker condition, which is in line with the important role of spatial cues in stream segregation. However, spatial cues provided similar benefits to performance under Selective and Distributed attention. This pattern suggests that despite the advantage of spatial cues for stream segregation, they were nonetheless insufficient for directing a more focused ‘attentional spotlight’ towards the location of a designated speaker in the Selective attention condition.

show abstract