The influence of spatial separation on divided listening.

If spatial attention acts like a "spotlight," focusing on one location and excluding others, it may be advantageous to have all targets of interest within the same spatial region. This hypothesis was explored using a task where listeners reported keywords from two simultaneous talkers. In Experiment 1, the two talkers were placed symmetrically about the frontal midline with various angular separations. While there was a small performance improvement for moderate separations, the improvement decreased for larger separations. However, the dependency of the relative talker intensities on spatial configuration accounted for these effects. Experiment 2 tested whether spatial separation improved the intelligibility of each source, an effect that could counteract any degradation in performance as sources fell outside the spatial spotlight of attention. In this experiment, intelligibility of individual sources was equalized across configurations by adding masking noise. Under these conditions, the cost of divided listening (the drop in performance when reporting both messages compared to reporting just one) was smaller when the spatial separation was small. These results suggest that spatial separation enhances the intelligibility of individual sources in a competing pair but increases the cost associated with having to process both sources simultaneously, consistent with the attentional spotlight hypothesis.

[1]  R. Zatorre,et al.  Shifting and focusing auditory spatial attention. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  Jon Driver,et al.  Covert Spatial Orienting in Audition: Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms , 1994 .

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

[4]  D. Somers,et al.  Processing Efficiency of Divided Spatial Attention Mechanisms in Human Visual Cortex , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[5]  Frederick J. Gallun,et al.  Task-dependent costs in processing two simultaneous auditory stimuli , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  D. Broadbent The role of auditory localization in attention and memory span. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  D. Broadbent Perception and communication , 1958 .

[8]  S. A. Hillyard,et al.  Sustained division of the attentional spotlight , 2003, Nature.

[9]  P T Quinlan,et al.  An examination of attentional control in the auditory modality: Further evidence for auditory orienting , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  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.

[11]  W. M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Auditory localization of nearby sources. Head-related transfer functions. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Switching or sharing in dual-task line-length discrimination? , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  Peter Howell,et al.  Laterality and Localization: A "Right Ear Advantage" for Speech Heard on the Left , 1978 .

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

[15]  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.

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

[17]  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.

[18]  D W Massaro,et al.  Perceiving and counting sounds. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[20]  B. Franklin Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. , 1981 .

[21]  Jean Requin,et al.  Spatial constraints on attention to speech , 1978 .

[22]  H. Pashler,et al.  Evidence for split attentional foci. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Selective and Divided Attention: Extracting Information from Simultaneous Sound Sources , 2004, ICAD.

[24]  B. Scharf,et al.  Auditory attention: the psychoacoustical approach , 1998 .

[25]  D. Somers,et al.  Multiple Spotlights of Attentional Selection in Human Visual Cortex , 2004, Neuron.

[26]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  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.

[28]  N. Macmillan,et al.  A probe-signal investigation of uncertain-frequency detection. , 1975, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Virginia Best,et al.  Spatial unmasking of birdsong in human listeners: energetic and informational factors. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  D W Massaro,et al.  Perceptual processing in dichotic listening. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[31]  W. Hartmann,et al.  The role of reverberation in release from masking due to spatial separation of sources for speech identification , 2005 .

[32]  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.