Effect of voice characteristics on the attended and unattended processing of two concurrent messages

Three experiments using dichotic listening measured the priming effect produced on the detection of a semantically defined target word in an attended list of words by a lexically identical word presented to the opposite ear with an attenuation of 12 dB. Experiment 1 embedded the prime in unattended continuous speech and found a 21 ms priming effect, but only when the voices of the two messages had different pitch ranges. Experiment 2 emphasised and generalised the priming effect to a more natural situation using voices differing both in pitch and timbre. This priming effect did not vary with word frequency. In Experiment 3 the prime was part of a list of isolated words played to the unattended ear. It found a 94 ms priming effect when there was no pitch-range difference between the two messages. This priming effect was larger for high-frequency words than for low. These results extend recent findings by Rivenez, Darwin, and Guillaume (2006) and demonstrate the importance of factors that influence perceptual organisation in determining the extent to which unattended messages can be processed.

[1]  James R. Lackner,et al.  Resolving ambiguity: Effects of biasing context in the unattended ear , 1972 .

[2]  Robert J. Zatorre,et al.  Perceptual asymmetry on the dichotic fused words test and cerebral speech lateralization determined by the carotid sodium amytal test , 1989, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  Emmanuel Dupoux,et al.  Lexical access without attention? Explorations using dichotic priming. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  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.

[5]  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.

[6]  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.

[7]  Eric Moulines,et al.  Pitch-synchronous waveform processing techniques for text-to-speech synthesis using diphones , 1989, Speech Commun..

[8]  K. Forster,et al.  REPETITION PRIMING AND FREQUENCY ATTENUATION IN LEXICAL ACCESS , 1984 .

[9]  C J Darwin,et al.  Limits to the role of a common fundamental frequency in the fusion of two sounds with different spatial cues. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  N. Moray.  Attention: selective processes in vision and hearing , 1970 .

[11]  Léonore Bourgeon,et al.  Unattended speech processing: effect of vocal-tract length. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  M. Dawson,et al.  Electrodermal responses to attended and nonattended significant stimuli during dichotic listening. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  A. Guillaume,et al.  Rôles de la hauteur et du timbre des voix dans l'organisation perceptive de la parole , 2006 .

[14]  N. Cowan,et al.  Is there implicit memory without attention? A reexamination of task demands in Eich’s (1984) procedure , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[15]  N. Cowan.  Attention and Memory: An Integrated Framework , 1995 .

[16]  Suparna Rajaram,et al.  Dissociative masked repetition priming and word frequency effects in lexical decision and episodic recognition tasks , 1992 .

[17]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Electrical Signs of Selective Attention in the Human Brain , 1973, Science.

[18]  J. Bird.  Effects of a difference in fundamental frequency in separating two sentences. , 1997 .

[19]  J. Grainger,et al.  Priming word recognition with orthographic neighbors: effects of relative prime-target frequency. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  N. Cowan,et al.  Constraints on Awareness, Attention, Processing, and Memory: Some Recent Investigations with Ignored Speech , 1997, Consciousness and Cognition.

[22]  K. Forster,et al.  Forty-five years after Broadbent (1958): still no identification without attention. , 2004, Psychological review.

[23]  N. Cowan,et al.  The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: how frequent are attention shifts to one's name in an irrelevant auditory channel? , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Control Methods Used in a Study of the Vowels , 1951 .

[25]  E. Eich,et al.  Memory for unattended events: Remembering with and without awareness , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[26]  S. G. Nooteboom,et al.  Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices , 1982 .

[27]  Stephen E. Newstead,et al.  Lexical and Grammatical Processing of Unshadowed Messages: A Re-Examination of the Mackay Effect , 1979 .

[28]  R. S. Corteen,et al.  Autonomic responses to shock-associated words in an unattended channel. , 1972, Journal of Experimental Psychology.

[29]  Anne Treisman,et al.  Monitoring and storage of irrelevant messages in selective attention , 1964 .

[30]  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.

[31]  Spatial Effects in Speech Perception in the Absence of Spatial Competition , 1977, Perception.

[32]  N. Moray.  Attention in Dichotic Listening: Affective Cues and the Influence of Instructions , 1959 .

[33]  James A. Hampton,et al.  Measures of internal category structure: A correlational analysis of normative data , 1983 .

[34]  M. Kutas,et al.  Semantic processing and memory for attended and unattended words in dichotic listening: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  E. C. Cmm,et al.  on the Recognition of Speech, with , 2008 .

[36]  E. C. Cherry.  Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears , 1953 .

[37]  D. Kimura.  Functional Asymmetry of the Brain in Dichotic Listening , 1967 .

[38]  D. Norman.  Memory While Shadowing , 1969, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[39]  N. Cowan.  Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. , 1988, Psychological bulletin.

[40]  A. Treisman,et al.  Selective Attention: Perception or Response? , 1967, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[41]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[42]  Carolyn Drake,et al.  Perceptual attenuation of nonfocused auditory streams , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[43]  A Kohlrausch,et al.  Psychoacoustical evaluation of PSOLA. II. Double-formant stimuli and the role of vocal perturbation. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  D. G. MacKay.  Aspects of the Theory of Comprehension, Memory and Attention , 1973 .

[45]  Marie Rivenez,et al.  Processing unattended speech. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  J. R. Doyle.  Semantic activation without conscious identification in dichotic listening , parafoveal vision , and visual masking : A survey and appraisal , 2008 .