Disentangling the effects of spatial cues on selection and formation of auditory objects.

When competing sources come from different directions, a desired target is easier to hear than when the sources are co-located. How much of this improvement is the result of spatial attention rather than improved perceptual segregation of the competing sources is not well understood. Here, listeners' attention was directed to spatial or nonspatial cues when they listened for a target masked by a competing message. A preceding cue signaled the target timbre, location, or both timbre and location. Spatial separation improved performance when the cue indicated the target location, or both the location and timbre, but not when the cue only indicated the target timbre. However, response errors were influenced by spatial configuration in all conditions. Both attention and streaming contributed to spatial effects when listeners actively attended to location. In contrast, when attention was directed to a nonspatial cue, spatial separation primarily appeared to improve the streaming of auditory objects across time. Thus, when attention is focused on location, spatial separation appears to improve both object selection and object formation; when attention is directed to nonspatial cues, separation affects object formation. These results highlight the need to distinguish between these separate mechanisms when considering how observers cope with complex auditory scenes.

[1]  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  A sound element gets lost in perceptual competition , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  John T. Serences,et al.  Parietal mechanisms of attentional control: locations, features, and objects , 2005 .

[3]  Gerald Kidd,et al.  Combining energetic and informational masking for speech identification. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  J. Culling,et al.  Perceptual separation of concurrent speech sounds: absence of across-frequency grouping by common interaural delay. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  Across-ear interference from parametrically degraded synthetic speech signals in a dichotic cocktail-party listening task. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Uma Balakrishnan,et al.  Spatial And Spectral Factors In Release From Informational Masking In Speech Recognition , 2005 .

[7]  Charles Darwin,et al.  Spatial Hearing and Perceiving Sources , 2008 .

[8]  Diana Deutsch,et al.  Grouping Mechanisms in Music , 1999 .

[9]  J. C. Middlebrooks,et al.  Individual differences in external-ear transfer functions reduced by scaling in frequency. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Simon Carlile,et al.  Contributions of talker characteristics and spatial location to auditory streaming. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  E. Knudsen Fundamental components of attention. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[12]  R. W. Hukin,et al.  Perceptual segregation of a harmonic from a vowel by interaural time difference and frequency proximity. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  W. Noble,et al.  The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[14]  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.

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

[16]  Judith Harkins,et al.  An Internet Survey of Individuals With Hearing Loss Regarding Assistive Listening Devices , 2007, Trends in amplification.

[17]  Sergei Kochkin,et al.  MarkeTrak VII: Customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age , 2005 .

[18]  J. Culling,et al.  The role of head-related time and level cues in the unmasking of speech in noise and competing speech , 2005 .

[19]  John F Culling,et al.  The spatial unmasking of speech: evidence for within-channel processing of interaural time delay. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Frederick J. Gallun,et al.  Binaural release from informational masking in a speech identification task. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  W. T. Nelson,et al.  A speech corpus for multitalker communications research. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[23]  J. C. Middlebrooks,et al.  Psychophysical customization of directional transfer functions for virtual sound localization. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  B. Scholl Objects and attention: the state of the art , 2001, Cognition.

[25]  D S Brungart,et al.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  S. Yantis,et al.  Control of Attention Shifts between Vision and Audition in Human Cortex , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[27]  Eric I. Knudsen,et al.  Top-down gain control of the auditory space map by gaze control circuitry in the barn owl , 2006, Nature.

[28]  S. Yantis,et al.  Selective visual attention and perceptual coherence , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[29]  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.

[30]  R L Freyman,et al.  Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  L. Busse,et al.  The spread of attention across modalities and space in a multisensory object. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  G. Kidd,et al.  Evidence for spatial tuning in informational masking using the probe-signal method. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[34]  Douglas S Brungart,et al.  Within-ear and across-ear interference in a dichotic cocktail party listening task: effects of masker uncertainty. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Q Summerfield,et al.  The role of frequency modulation in the perceptual segregation of concurrent vowels. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[37]  Brent Edwards,et al.  The Future of Hearing Aid Technology , 2007, Trends in amplification.

[38]  G. Kidd,et al.  The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[40]  John F. Culling,et al.  Effects of simulated reverberation on the use of binaural cues and fundamental-frequency differences for separating concurrent vowels , 1994, Speech Commun..

[41]  Stuart Gatehouse,et al.  Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing scale (SSQ) , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[42]  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.

[43]  Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Bottom-up and top-down influences on spatial unmasking , 2005 .

[44]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Preattentive Object Files: Shapeless Bundles of Basic Features , 1997, Vision Research.

[45]  Virginia Best,et al.  The influence of spatial separation on divided listening. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  Nancy Kanwisher,et al.  fMRI evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection , 1999, Nature.

[47]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Note on informational masking. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  H. Colburn,et al.  Models of Sound Localization , 2005 .

[49]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Influences of spatial cues on grouping and understanding sound , 2005 .

[50]  John F Culling,et al.  Speech perception from monaural and binaural information. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[51]  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.

[52]  R. Rafal,et al.  Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[53]  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.

[54]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Note on informational masking (L) , 2003 .

[55]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[56]  M. Ericson,et al.  Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[57]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Changing your mind: on the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[58]  John T. Serences,et al.  Parietal mechanisms of switching and maintaining attention to locations, objects, and features , 2005 .

[59]  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.