The division of attention and the human auditory evoked potential

Hink, Robert F.; Voorhis, S.T. Van; Hillyard, Steven A.; Smith, Trenton G.

doi:10.1016/0028-3932(77)90065-3

Cited by 108 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Simultaneously, ERPs were recorded to linguistic and nonlinguistic probe stimuli superimposed on the narratives at both the attended and unattended speakers. Consistent with previous findings (Woldorff & Hillyard, 1991;Hillyard & Picton, 1987;Woods et al, 1984;Hansen, Dickstein, et al, 1983;Hansen & Hillyard, 1980;Näätänen, 1979Näätänen, , 1982Hink et al, 1977Hink et al, , 1978Hillyard et al, 1973), in adults, the ERP waveforms evidenced the typical auditory attention effect for both types of probes: an enhanced negativity for probes when attended as compared with those same Figure 3. In a comparison of the attention effects (attended-unattended) in children and adults using normalized difference measures, a Group Â Hemisphere Â Laterality interaction reflected the relatively greater left-than-right lateral extension of attention effects observed in adults.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Event-related Potential Study of Selective Auditory Attention in Children and Adults

Coch

Sanders²,

Neville³

2005

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

118

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract& In a dichotic listening paradigm, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded to linguistic and nonlinguistic probe stimuli embedded in 2 different narrative contexts as they were either attended or unattended. In adults, the typical N1 attention effect was observed for both types of probes: Probes superimposed on the attended narrative elicited an enhanced negativity compared to the same probes when unattended. Overall, this sustained attention effect was greater over medial and left lateral sites, but was more posteriorly distributed and of longer duration for linguistic as compared to nonlinguistic probes. In contrast, in 6-to 8-year-old children the ERPs were morphologically dissimilar to those elicited in adults and children displayed a greater positivity to both types of probe stimuli when embedded in the attended as compared to the unattended narrative. Although both adults and children showed attention effects beginning at about 100 msec, only adults displayed left-lateralized attention effects and a distinct, posterior distribution for linguistic probes. These results suggest that the attentional networks indexed by this task continue to develop beyond the age of 8 years. &

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…A similar N1 attention effect was reported for syllables and environmental sounds (Hink, Hillyard, & Benson, 1978;Hink, van Voorhis, Hillyard, & Smith, 1977).…”

Section: Event-related Potential Measures Of Selective Auditory Attensupporting

confidence: 59%

An Event-related Potential Study of Selective Auditory Attention in Children and Adults

Coch

Sanders²,

Neville³

2005

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

118

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adopting this strategy would have reduced Nd, amplitude and delayed Nd, onset (Hink, Van Voorhis, Hillyard, & Smith, 1977;Okita, 1979;Parasuraman, 1980). In the present study, evidence for a division of attention between the attended frequency and the adjacent middle frequency in CH conditions is also compatible with the large number of FAs and the slowed RTs in CH conditions.…”

Section: Implications For the Attentional Trace Modelsupporting

confidence: 72%

Signal clustering modulates auditory cortical activity in humans

Alain

Woods

1994

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditory streaming and its relevance to attentional processing was examined using event-related brain potentials (ERPs) in situations facilitating perception of one or two streams of sounds. Subjects listened to sequences of brief tones of three different frequencies presented in random order. In evenly spaced (ES) conditions, the three frequencies were equidistant on the musical scale. In clustered, easy (CE) conditions, the attended frequency was distinct, while the middle and extreme distractor tones were clustered together. In clustered, hard (CH) conditions, the attended frequency was clustered with one of the distractors. The subjects pressed a button in response to occasional target tones of longer duration at a prespecified frequency. The subjects were faster and more accurate in CE conditions than they were in ES conditions, and ERP attention effects were enhanced in amplitude in CE conditions. Conversely, the subjects were slower and less accurate in CH conditions and ERP attention effects were delayed in latency and decreased in amplitude. Clustering effects suggest that the processing of stimuli belonging to the attended stream was promoted and the processing of those falling outside the stream was inhibited. The timing and scalp distribution of clustering-related changes in ERPs suggest that clustering modulates early sensory processing in auditory cortex.The clustering by frequency of successive acoustic events influences our ability to distinguish auditory stimuli from one another. For example, order judgments of target tones embedded in short, frequently repeated sequences are improved when distractor tones are clustered together (Bregman & Rudnicky, 1975;Jones, Kidd, & Wetzel, 1981). The clustering ofdistractors has also been shown to improve the speed as well as the accuracy of target detection, even when the tones are presented in random order . Conversely, the clustering of attended tones with distractors degrades performance and slows reaction times (RTs; Alain, Achim, & Richer, 1993). These performance variations can be explained by the clustering-based segregation of tone sequences into distinct perceptual streams. Improved discriminability is observed when the distractors are segregated in a perceptual stream distinct from the targets. On the other hand, discriminability is decreased when targets and distractors are grouped together. Bregman (1990) proposed that auditory stream segregation is the result of preattentive perceptual grouping This research was supported by grants from the NIDCD and the VA Research Service to D.LW., and by a postdoctoral fellowship provided by the Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec to C.A. Our special thanks to Greg Shenaut and John Lackey for software development. We would also like to thank K. H. Ogawa, K. Alho, R. Naatanen, M. G. Woldorff, A. S. Bregman, L. Krueger, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. Correspondence should be addressed to Claude Alain, Department ofNeurology, Northern California Systems of Clinics (612/127), ISO Muir Road...

show abstract

“…Several lines of research that can be dated back to the 1970s have indicated that selective attention can influence sensory processes. For instance, event-related potential (ERP) studies on both auditory and visual perception have shown that attention modulates the ongoing sen-sory processes at several processing stages, including relatively early stages of sensory analysis (Hink et al, 1977;Picton and Hillyard, 1974). For the visual modality, spatial selective attention has been found to enhance the relatively early latency P1 and N1 ERP components (Hillyard et al, 1998), suggesting that attention serves as a gain controller of early sensory processes.…”

Section: Dtmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Curious Incident of Attention in Multisensory Integration: Bottom-up vs. Top-down

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role attention plays in our experience of a coherent, multisensory world is still controversial. On the one hand, a subset of inputs may be selected for detailed processing and multisensory integration in a top-down manner, i.e., guidance of multisensory integration by attention. On the other hand, stimuli may be integrated in a bottom-up fashion according to low-level properties such as spatial coincidence, thereby capturing attention. Moreover, attention itself is multifaceted and can be described via both top-down and bottom-up mechanisms. Thus, the interaction between attention and multisensory integration is complex and situation-dependent. The authors of this opinion paper are researchers who have contributed to this discussion from behavioural, computational and neurophysiological perspectives. We posed a series of questions, the goal of which was to illustrate the interplay between bottom-up and top-down processes in various multisensory scenarios in order to clarify the standpoint taken by each author and with the hope of reaching a consensus. Although divergence of viewpoint emerges in the current responses, there is also considerable overlap: In general, it can be concluded that the amount of influence that attention exerts on MSI depends on the current task as * Equal contribution (ordered alphabetically). ** Equal contribution. *** To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: hartcher@isir.upmc.fr; Ruth.Adam@med.uni-muenchen.de Macaluso et al. / Multisensory Research (2016) well as prior knowledge and expectations of the observer. Moreover stimulus properties such as the reliability and salience also determine how open the processing is to influences of attention.

show abstract

The division of attention and the human auditory evoked potential

Cited by 108 publications

References 18 publications

An Event-related Potential Study of Selective Auditory Attention in Children and Adults

An Event-related Potential Study of Selective Auditory Attention in Children and Adults

Signal clustering modulates auditory cortical activity in humans

The Curious Incident of Attention in Multisensory Integration: Bottom-up vs. Top-down

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About