A dual-process account of auditory change detection.

Listeners can be "deaf" to a substantial change in a scene comprising multiple auditory objects unless their attention has been directed to the changed object. It is unclear whether auditory change detection relies on identification of the objects in pre- and post-change scenes. We compared the rates at which listeners correctly identify changed objects with those predicted by change-detection models based on signal detection theory (SDT) and high-threshold theory (HTT). Detected changes were not identified as accurately as predicted by models based on either theory, suggesting that some changes are detected by a process that does not support change identification. Undetected changes were identified as accurately as predicted by the HTT model but much less accurately than predicted by the SDT models. The process underlying change detection was investigated further by determining receiver-operating characteristics (ROCs). ROCs did not conform to those predicted by either a SDT or a HTT model but were well modeled by a dual-process that incorporated HTT and SDT components. The dual-process model also accurately predicted the rates at which detected and undetected changes were correctly identified.

[1]  L. Pessoa,et al.  Beyond the Grand Illusion: What Change Blindness Really Teaches Us About Vision , 2000 .

[2]  Alan R. Palmer,et al.  Psychophysical and Physiological Advances in Hearing , 1998 .

[3]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[4]  Eugene Galanter,et al.  Handbook of mathematical psychology: I. , 1963 .

[5]  Katsumi Watanabe,et al.  Differential effect of distractor timing on localizing versus identifying visual changes , 2003, Cognition.

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

[7]  M. Turatto,et al.  Change perception in complex auditory scenes , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  Mark W. Becker,et al.  The Role of Iconic Memory in Change-Detection Tasks , 2000, Perception.

[9]  Stephen R Mitroff,et al.  Nothing compares 2 views: Change blindness can occur despite preserved access to the changed information , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  L. Demany,et al.  An evaluation of psychophysical models of auditory change perception. , 2008, Psychological review.

[11]  Kenneth I Forster,et al.  DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[12]  W. Ma,et al.  A detection theory account of change detection. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[13]  Michael S Vitevitch,et al.  Change deafness: the inability to detect changes between two voices. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  Melissa R. Beck,et al.  The role of representational volatility in recognizing pre- and postchange objects , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  Gabriel Nevarez,et al.  Visual Sensing Is Seeing , 2005, Psychological science.

[16]  N A Macmillan,et al.  Detection theory analysis of group data: estimating sensitivity from average hit and false-alarm rates. , 1985, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  J. Swets.  Indices of discrimination or diagnostic accuracy: their ROCs and implied models. , 1986, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  Melissa K. Gregg,et al.  Change deafness and the organizational properties of sounds. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Susan J. Galvin,et al.  Type 2 tasks in the theory of signal detectability: Discrimination between correct and incorrect decisions , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[20]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection and recognition of increments and decrements in auditory intensity , 1971 .

[21]  A. Yonelinas.  Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: evidence for a dual-process model. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[23]  Ervin R. Hafter,et al.  A role for memory in divided attention between two independent stimuli , 1998 .

[24]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  On the Failure to Detect Changes in Scenes Across Brief Interruptions , 2000 .

[25]  J. Wixted.  Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. , 2007, Psychological review.

[26]  Colleen M. Parks,et al.  Receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) in recognition memory: a review. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

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

[28]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[29]  W Jesteadt,et al.  Intensity and frequency discrimination in one- and two-interval paradigms. , 1972, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  D. Luce,et al.  Detection and Recognition " ' , 2006 .

[31]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection and recognition of intensity changes in tone and noise: The detection-recognition disparity , 1973 .

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

[33]  Russell L. Martin,et al.  Free-Field Equivalent Localization of Virtual Audio , 2001 .

[34]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[35]  A. Hollingworth.  Failures of retrieval and comparison constrain change detection in natural scenes. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  Ronald A. Rensink.  Visual Sensing Without Seeing , 2004, Psychological science.