Auditory Attention Flashcards
William James, 1890
Difference between active (top-down) and passive (Bottom-up) attention
Chun et al., 2011
External attention and internal attention (attention to thoughts)
McDermot, 2009
People must do two things when attending to sound
1. Sound segregation - knowing which sounds belong together
2. Locating the source of the sound and ignoring other sources
Perception of what a person is saying tends to be easier if you’ve heard that person’s voice in isolation before - role of memory? Top-down sound familiarity and recognition?
Shen et al., 2008
Voice recognition machines work almost perfectly when there is only one clear sound source but perform poorly in the presence of multiple sounds sources
Cherry, 1953
Used shadowing to ensure pps were listening to the attended message
Pps could distinguish physical characteristics of messages in the unattended ear (E.G. sex, intensity and location)
Pps found it hard to separate messages spoken by the same speaker- messages could not be distinguished by meaning alone
Pps could extract little info from the unattended message (E.G. when someone spoke in a diff language)
Moray, 1959
Pps did not have memory of a word that was repeated 35 times in the unattended ear
Listeners could detect their own name in the unattended message
Broadbent, 1958
Filter Theory
Treisman, 1964
Attenuation Model
Found some pps to accidentally shadow words from the unattended ear if the words were probable to appear in the attended message - due to top-down processing
Deutsch and Deutsch, 1963
Late filter theory
Treisman and Riley, 1969
Found pps detected more target words in the shadowed message than the unattended message
Benton et al., 1995
Although some words in the unattended message received some semantic processing, the extent of the processing was little in comparison to the that of the attended message
Li et al., 2011
Women dissatisfied with weight had more shadowing errors when weight related words were spoken in the unattended message compared to women who were satisfied with their weight - Messages with significance to the listener can grasp attention
Conway et al., 2001
Ppl with poor working memory were more likely to detect their name in the unattended message than those with better working memory because they have less attentional control
Support for Broadbent’s Filter Theory
Coch et al., 2005
ERP’s 100ms after the target word was presented was greater for target words presented in the attended ear than target words presented in the unattended ear
Evidence against Deutsch and Deutsch - attended message receives more processing than the unattended message
Horton et al., 2013
Greater brain activity was associated with processing the attended messages in many brain regions
This is due to enhancing the attended message and inhibiting the unattended message - support for Treisman
Robinson and McAlpine, 2009
Extensive descending neural pathways from the auditory cortex to brain areas associated with early auditory processing
Suggests top-down role in auditory attention - support for Treisman
Marozeau et al., 2010
Musicians were better at following a melody amongst random distractor notes than non-musicians - due to knowledge and expertise
All pps were able to detect a target melody if the number of distractor notes increased over conditions - they had the chance to practise identifying the target melody
Evidence for individual differences (practise effects)
Mesgarani and Chang, 2012
Pps attended to one of two voices in the same ear
Auditory cortex activity implied that only one speaker was being listened to, not two
Support for Broadbent
Golumbic et al, 2013
Processing of the attended message is enhanced when pps were shown a video of the person talking - visual info influences auditory processing
Kurt et al., 2008
Processing one auditory input tends to suppress the neural circuits processing the other auditory stimuli
Awh et al., 2012
Auditory processing can be influenced by top-down and bottom-up processing models
Shamma and Fritz, 2014
Neurons can be viewed as filters for auditory attention, processing stimuli relevant for task directed goals - attention can differ depending on the sensory context
Broadbent, 1958
Numbers played in two different ears were recalled in chunks from each ear, not in the order they were played - evidence for the sensory buffer
Dawson and Schell, 1982
Leakage v slippage - Attention may slip to the unattended message (Support for Broadbent)
Bidet-Caulet et al., 2014
Found that top-down and bottom-up mechanisms interact to reduce distraction
Increasing top-down attention task load was able to reduce early processing of the distractor task but bottom-up attention capture and behavioural distraction did not decrease
Styles, 1997
Auditory attention models provide description but little explanation of auditory attention
Nolden and Koch, 2017
Practise was found to reduce task difficulty
