Influence of Task-Relevant and Task-Irrelevant Feature Continuity on Selective Auditory Attention

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.

[1]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Does auditory streaming require attention? Evidence from attentional selectivity in short-term memory. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  Virginia Best,et al.  Object continuity enhances selective auditory attention , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  Effect of target-masker similarity on across-ear interference in a dichotic cocktail-party listening task. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  R L Freyman,et al.  The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  The effects of spatial separation in distance on the informational and energetic masking of a nearby speech signal. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Localizing nearby sound sources in a classroom: binaural room impulse responses. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[8]  Frederick J. Gallun,et al.  The advantage of knowing where to listen. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  R W Hukin,et al.  Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic, and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Spatial release from energetic and informational masking in a selective speech identification task. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Antje Ihlefeld,et al.  Disentangling the effects of spatial cues on selection and formation of auditory objects. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  B. Shinn-Cunningham Object-based auditory and visual attention , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  C. Darwin,et al.  Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  C. J. Darwin,et al.  Chapter 11 – Auditory Grouping , 1995 .

[15]  Rhodri Cusack,et al.  Neglect Between but Not Within Auditory Objects , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  Jessica M. Foxton,et al.  Effects of attention and unilateral neglect on auditory stream segregation. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  R. W. Hukin,et al.  Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in selective attention. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Albert S. Bregman,et al.  The Auditory Scene. (Book Reviews: Auditory Scene Analysis. The Perceptual Organization of Sound.) , 1990 .

[19]  Neil L. Aaronson,et al.  Release from speech-on-speech masking by adding a delayed masker at a different location. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  C Alain,et al.  Selectively attending to auditory objects. , 2000, Frontiers in bioscience : a journal and virtual library.

[21]  Gerald Kidd,et al.  Tuning in the spatial dimension: evidence from a masked speech identification task. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  R. W. Hukin,et al.  Auditory objects of attention: the role of interaural time differences. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  C. Darwin Auditory grouping , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[24]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Selective Attention in Normal and Impaired Hearing , 2008, Trends in amplification.

[25]  Virginia Best,et al.  Visually-guided Attention Enhances Target Identification in a Complex Auditory Scene , 2007, Journal for the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[26]  Erik Blaser,et al.  Tracking an object through feature space , 2000, Nature.

[27]  Jason B. Mattingley,et al.  Directed Attention Eliminates ‘Change Deafness’ in Complex Auditory Scenes , 2005, Current Biology.

[28]  Antje Ihlefeld,et al.  Spatial release from energetic and informational masking in a divided speech identification task. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Lexical and indexical cues in masking by competing speech. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  R. Carlyon,et al.  Effects of location, frequency region, and time course of selective attention on auditory scene analysis. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.