The Orienting Response: Index of Attention

Cohen, Ronald A.

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-72639-7_8

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 130 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(2) The prevalence of nonspecific (also called spontaneous) skin conductance responses (SCRs). SCRs are transient increases of skin conductance over a relatively short period of time (1–63 s) that have been associated with the engagement of working memory and/or selective attention, especially with respect to emotionally salient stimuli (Andreassi, 2007 ; Bradley, 2009 ; Cohen, 2014 ) and speech recognition (Francis et al, 2016 ; Mackersie & Calderon-Moultrie 2016 ; Mackersie & Cones 2011 ; Seeman & Sims, 2015 ; though see Cvijanović et al, 2017 ; Mackersie, MacPhee, & Heldt, 2015 , for null results). (3) The frequency or period of the heartbeat is measured because a broad range of studies have shown increased heart rate (decreased heart period) in more cognitively demanding task conditions (Backs & Seljos, 1994 ; Carroll, Phillips, & Bolanos, 2009 ; Carroll, Turner, & Prasad, 1986 ; Kennedy & Scholey, 2000 ; Turner & Carroll, 1985 ), including in one study of listening effort (Seeman & Sims, 2015 ), though not in others (Cvijanović et al, 2017 ; Mackersie & Cones, 2011 ).…”

Section: Physiological Measures Associated With Listening Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Listener characteristics differentially affect self-reported and physiological measures of effort associated with two challenging listening conditions

Francis

Bent

Schumaker

et al. 2021

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Listeners vary in their ability to understand speech in adverse conditions. Differences in both cognitive and linguistic capacities play a role, but increasing evidence suggests that such factors may contribute differentially depending on the listening challenge. Here, we used multilevel modeling to evaluate contributions of individual differences in age, hearing thresholds, vocabulary, selective attention, working memory capacity, personality traits, and noise sensitivity to variability in measures of comprehension and listening effort in two listening conditions. A total of 35 participants completed a battery of cognitive and linguistic tests as well as a spoken story comprehension task using (1) native-accented English speech masked by speech-shaped noise and (2) nonnative accented English speech without masking. Masker levels were adjusted individually to ensure each participant would show (close to) equivalent word recognition performance across the two conditions. Dependent measures included comprehension tests results, self-rated effort, and electrodermal, cardiovascular, and facial electromyographic measures associated with listening effort. Results showed varied patterns of responsivity across different dependent measures as well as across listening conditions. In particular, results suggested that working memory capacity may play a greater role in the comprehension of nonnative accented speech than noise-masked speech, while hearing acuity and personality may have a stronger influence on physiological responses affected by demands of understanding speech in noise. Furthermore, electrodermal measures may be more strongly affected by affective response to noise-related interference while cardiovascular responses may be more strongly affected by demands on working memory and lexical access.

show abstract

Section: Physiological Measures Associated With Listening Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Listener characteristics differentially affect self-reported and physiological measures of effort associated with two challenging listening conditions

Francis

Bent

Schumaker

et al. 2021

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SCR amplitude is sensitive to stimulus intensity, and also declines with repeated exposure (habituation) (Dawson et al, ). Electrodermal measures have been proposed as markers of selective attention, especially with respect to emotionally salient stimuli (Bradley, ; Cohen, ) and as a component of the orienting response (Barry, MacDonald, De Blasio, & Steiner, ; Cohen, ). With respect to listening effort, some studies (Francis et al, ; Mackersie & Calderon‐Moultrie, ; Mackersie & Cones, ; S. Seeman & Sims, ) suggest that different aspects of EDA may be useful for examining factors related to selective attention in speech perception, though Cvijanović, Kechichian, Janse, and Kohlrausch () and Mackersie, MacPhee, and Heldt () also reported null results for some of the same EDA‐based measures.…”

Section: Measuring Listening Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Listening effort: Are we measuring cognition or affect, or both?

Francis

Love

2019

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Listening effort is increasingly recognized as a factor in communication, particularly for and with nonnative speakers, for the elderly, for individuals with hearing impairment and/or for those working in noise. However, as highlighted by McGarrigle et al., International Journal of Audiology, 2014, 53, 433–445, the term “listening effort” encompasses a wide variety of concepts, including the engagement and control of multiple possibly distinct neural systems for information processing, and the affective response to the expenditure of those resources in a given context. Thus, experimental or clinical methods intended to objectively quantify listening effort may ultimately reflect a complex interaction between the operations of one or more of those information processing systems, and/or the affective and motivational response to the demand on those systems. Here we examine theoretical, behavioral, and psychophysiological factors related to resolving the question of what we are measuring, and why, when we measure “listening effort.” This article is categorized under: Linguistics > Language in Mind and Brain Psychology > Theory and Methods Psychology > Attention Psychology > Emotion and Motivation

show abstract

“…Given the absence of MRI measurements, trials reinforced by electrical stimulation were also included in our analysis, in contrast to the previous studies (Apergis-Schoute et al, 2017;Schiller et al, 2008). Moreover, we removed trials before the first shock in both stages (the orienting response; Cohen, 1993), and the first CS-trial after the shock during reversal, as participants had no knowledge of the current contingencies at that particular part of the experiment. Individual data were exported to SPSS (Version 23) for statistical analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impaired differential learning of fear versus safety signs in obsessive-compulsive disorder

Elsner

Reuter

Said

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pavlovian learning mechanisms are of great importance both for models of psychiatric disorders and treatment approaches, but understudied in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Using an established Pavlovian fear conditioning and reversal procedure, we studied skin conductance responses (SCRs) in 41 patients with OCD and in 32 matched healthy control participants. Within both groups, fear acquisition and reversal effects were evident. When comparing groups, patients showed impaired differential learning of threatening and safe stimuli, consistent with previous research. In contrast to prior findings, differential learning impairments were restricted to fear acquisition, and not observed in the reversal stage of the experiment. As previous and present fear reversal experiments in OCD differed in the use of color coding to facilitate stimulus discrimination, the studies converge to suggest that differential learning of threatening versus safe stimuli is impaired in OCD, but manifests itself differently depending on the difficulty of the association to be learned. When supported by the addition of color, patients with OCD previously appeared to acquire an association early but failed to reverse it according to changed contingencies. In absence of such color coding of stimuli, our data suggest that patients with OCD already show differential learning impairments during fear acquisition, which may relate to findings of altered coping with uncertainty previously observed in OCD. Impaired differential learning of threatening versus safe stimuli should be studied further in OCD, in order to determine whether impairments in differential learning predict CBT treatment outcomes in patients, and whether they are etiologically relevant for OCD.

show abstract

The Orienting Response: Index of Attention

Cited by 5 publications

References 130 publications

Listener characteristics differentially affect self-reported and physiological measures of effort associated with two challenging listening conditions

Listener characteristics differentially affect self-reported and physiological measures of effort associated with two challenging listening conditions

Listening effort: Are we measuring cognition or affect, or both?

Impaired differential learning of fear versus safety signs in obsessive-compulsive disorder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About