Intentional attention switching in dichotic listening: Exploring the efficiency of nonspatial and spatial selection

2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (10) ◽  
pp. 2010-2024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Lawo ◽  
Janina Fels ◽  
Josefa Oberem ◽  
Iring Koch
Keyword(s):  
Dichotic Listening ◽  
Target Selection ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Numerical Magnitude ◽  
Relevant Feature ◽  
Attention Switching ◽  
Number Words ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Feature Dimension ◽  
Listening Task

Using an auditory variant of task switching, we examined the ability to intentionally switch attention in a dichotic-listening task. In our study, participants responded selectively to one of two simultaneously presented auditory number words (spoken by a female and a male, one for each ear) by categorizing its numerical magnitude. The mapping of gender (female vs. male) and ear (left vs. right) was unpredictable. The to-be-attended feature for gender or ear, respectively, was indicated by a visual selection cue prior to auditory stimulus onset. In Experiment 1, explicitly cued switches of the relevant feature dimension (e.g., from gender to ear) and switches of the relevant feature within a dimension (e.g., from male to female) occurred in an unpredictable manner. We found large performance costs when the relevant feature switched, but switches of the relevant feature dimension incurred only small additional costs. The feature-switch costs were larger in ear-relevant than in gender-relevant trials. In Experiment 2, we replicated these findings using a simplified design (i.e., only within-dimension switches with blocked dimensions). In Experiment 3, we examined preparation effects by manipulating the cueing interval and found a preparation benefit only when ear was cued. Together, our data suggest that the large part of attentional switch costs arises from reconfiguration at the level of relevant auditory features (e.g., left vs. right) rather than feature dimensions (ear vs. gender). Additionally, our findings suggest that ear-based target selection benefits more from preparation time (i.e., time to direct attention to one ear) than gender-based target selection.

The Flip Side of the Auditory Spatial Selection Benefit

2015 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iring Koch ◽  
Vera Lawo
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Auditory Task ◽  
Numerical Magnitude ◽  
Attention Shifting ◽  
Gender Selection ◽  
Spatial Selection ◽  
Number Words ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Mixing Costs ◽  
Experimental Group

In cued auditory task switching, one of two dichotically presented number words, spoken by a female and a male, had to be judged according to its numerical magnitude. One experimental group selected targets by speaker gender and another group by ear of presentation. In mixed-task blocks, the target-defining feature (male/female vs. left/right) was cued prior to each trial, but in pure blocks it remained constant. Compared to selection by gender, selection by ear led to better performance in pure blocks than in mixed blocks, resulting in larger “global” mixing costs for ear-based selection. Selection by ear also led to larger “local” switch costs in mixed blocks, but this finding was partially mediated by differential cue-repetition benefits. Together, the data suggest that requirements of attention shifting diminish the auditory spatial selection benefit.

Intentional preparation of auditory attention-switches: Explicit cueing and sequential switch-predictability

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. 1382-1395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia C Seibold ◽  
Sophie Nolden ◽  
Josefa Oberem ◽  
Janina Fels ◽  
Iring Koch
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Attention ◽  
Attention Switching ◽  
Target Number ◽  
Stimulus Interval ◽  
Switching Sequence ◽  
Number Words ◽  
The Third ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Active Switch ◽  
Attention Switch

In an auditory attention-switching paradigm, participants heard two simultaneously spoken number-words, each presented to one ear, and decided whether the target number was smaller or larger than 5 by pressing a left or right key. An instructional cue in each trial indicated which feature had to be used to identify the target number (e.g., female voice). Auditory attention-switch costs were found when this feature changed compared to when it repeated in two consecutive trials. Earlier studies employing this paradigm showed mixed results when they examined whether such cued auditory attention-switches can be prepared actively during the cue–stimulus interval. This study systematically assessed which preconditions are necessary for the advance preparation of auditory attention-switches. Three experiments were conducted that controlled for cue-repetition benefits, modality switches between cue and stimuli, as well as for predictability of the switch-sequence. Only in the third experiment, in which predictability for an attention-switch was maximal due to a pre-instructed switch-sequence and predictable stimulus onsets, active switch-specific preparation was found. These results suggest that the cognitive system can prepare auditory attention-switches, and this preparation seems to be triggered primarily by the memorised switching-sequence and valid expectations about the time of target onset.

Temporal-Phonemic Processing Skills in Adult Stutterers and Nonstutterers

1989 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan C. Meyers ◽  
Larry F. Hughes ◽  
Zahrl G. Schoeny
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Dichotic Listening ◽  
Temporal Order ◽  
Temporal Order Judgment ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Auditory Temporal Processing ◽  
Dichotic Listening Task ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Listening Task ◽  
Normal Controls

The purpose of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that stuttering is related to a dysfunction in auditory temporal processing. The performance of 20 adult male stutterers and 20 matched nonstutterers was studied using two auditory processing tasks. The subjects listened to stimuli with differential onset asynchronies during temporal order judgment (TOJ) and dichotic listening tasks. Stutterers and nonstutterers were not significantly different at judging which ear received the stimulation first (TOJ task) at varying stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). During the dichotic listening task, stutterers made significantly fewer double-correct responses (correct report for both stimuli in a dichotic pair) than nonstutterers. The stuttering subjects correctly classified one of the syllables in a pair (single-correct response) more frequently than normal controls on the dichotic listening task. These findings suggest that SOAs as a temporal parameter do not differentiate the performance of the two groups. The more difficult auditory processing task (dichotic identification) showed a significant difference in the performance of the stutterers versus nonstutterers.

Creativity and Attention: Insights From the Dichotic Listening Task

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oshin A. Vartanian ◽  
Colin Martindale ◽  
Jessica Matthews ◽  
Jonna M. Kwiatkowski
Keyword(s):  
Dichotic Listening ◽  
Dichotic Listening Task ◽  
Listening Task

Previously reward-associated sounds interfere with goal-directed auditory processing

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182199003
Author(s):  
Andy J Kim ◽  
David S Lee ◽  
Brian A Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Visual Processing ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Dichotic Listening ◽  
Auditory Information ◽  
Correct Identification ◽  
Subsequent Test ◽  
Dichotic Listening Task ◽  
Listening Task ◽  
Task Irrelevant ◽  
Visual Domain

Previously reward-associated stimuli have consistently been shown to involuntarily capture attention in the visual domain. Although previously reward-associated but currently task-irrelevant sounds have also been shown to interfere with visual processing, it remains unclear whether such stimuli can interfere with the processing of task-relevant auditory information. To address this question, we modified a dichotic listening task to measure interference from task-irrelevant but previously reward-associated sounds. In a training phase, participants were simultaneously presented with a spoken letter and number in different auditory streams and learned to associate the correct identification of each of three letters with high, low, and no monetary reward, respectively. In a subsequent test phase, participants were again presented with the same auditory stimuli but were instead instructed to report the number while ignoring spoken letters. In both the training and test phases, response time measures demonstrated that attention was biased in favour of the auditory stimulus associated with high value. Our findings demonstrate that attention can be biased towards learned reward cues in the auditory domain, interfering with goal-directed auditory processing.

Responses of Stuttering and Non-Stuttering Children to a Dichotic Listening Task

1974 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 263-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Gruber ◽  
R. L. Powell
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
School Children ◽  
Dichotic Listening ◽  
Cerebral Dominance ◽  
Dichotic Listening Task ◽  
Listening Task

Performance on a dichotic listening task of 28 normally speaking and 28 stuttering elementary and high school children showed no significant inter-ear differences. These results do not support the idea that stuttering results from lack of cerebral dominance for speech.

scholarly journals M187. A MULTIMODAL, NEUROIMAGING STUDY OF TDCS MECHANISMS RELATED TO AUDITORY VERBAL HALLUCINATIONS IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S207-S207
Author(s):  
Marquardt Lynn ◽  
Isabella Kusztrits ◽  
Alexander R Craven ◽  
Kenneth Hugdahl ◽  
Karsten Specht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electric Field ◽  
Mr Spectroscopy ◽  
Dichotic Listening ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Brain Activation ◽  
Healthy Individuals ◽  
Auditory Verbal Hallucinations ◽  
Sham Stimulation ◽  
Dichotic Listening Task ◽  
Listening Task

Abstract Background Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a brain stimulation method which is growing in popularity in both research and clinical settings, especially as a treatment of auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH) in patients with schizophrenia. However, the underlying neural mechanisms of this tDCS treatment are poorly understood. Current AVH models propose that AVH arise from hyperactivation in the left temporo parietal (LTPC), causing AVH, and from hypoactivation in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC), leading to diminished control over AVH. We aimed to “mimic” this hyper-/hypoactivation pattern in healthy individuals with tDCS by placing the excitatory anode above the LTPC and the inhibitory cathode over the LDLPFC and then to study the effects of tDCS on these brain areas. Previous studies examined either brain activation, neurochemistry, or behavior, with other electrode montages, but few looked at those aspects together. The present study therefore examined tDCS effects with fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), MR spectroscopy, behavioral tasks and simulation of the electric field in a multimodal approach. We hypothesized that tDCS would (a) lead to similar behavioral deficits in healthy individuals as in schizophrenia patients and (b) induce changes in the stimulated areas on neurotransmitter and functional activation level. Methods Thirty-two healthy participants (18 males, mean age=26 yrs) were tested twice, ca. one week apart, with either real or sham (control) 2mA tDCS for 20 min while in a GE 750, 3T MRI scanner. The order of real/sham stimulation was counterbalanced in a double-blind design. During fMRI, participants completed a dichotic listening task in a block design, in order to measure behavior and brain activation changes. Before and after fMRI/tDCS, MR spectroscopy was carried out in two voxels placed under the electrodes. The data was analyzed with repeated measures ANOVAs. After data-collection, the structural T1 sequence was used to simulate the electric field of tDCS stimulation. Results Glx (Glutamate and glutamine combined) showed a trend (F(1,31)=3.35, p=.077, η2p=.098) to increase after tDCS stimulation compared to before, however this was not electrode specific. Neither fMRI, nor the dichotic listening task (all F≤1.64, p≥.203, η2p≤.052) showed any stimulation specific differences between real and sham stimulation. The tDCS simulation revealed large individual differences in the electric field induced. Discussion In the present study, tDCS seemed to have little effect on the measured brain parameters and little validation for the AVH model was found. The mechanisms of tDCS and how it affects the underlying brain tissue are poorly understood and seem to be affected by different stimulation parameters like stimulation duration, current strength and electrode montage. To use tDCS most effectively in schizophrenia research and treatment of auditory hallucinations, it should be validated with a multitude of methods, similar to the approach described here.

Performance on Auditory and Visual Tasks of Inhibition in English Monolingual and Spanish–English Bilingual Adults: Do Bilinguals Have a Cognitive Advantage?

2018 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 410-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie L. Desjardins ◽  
Francisco Fernandez
Keyword(s):  
Incongruent Trial ◽  
Dichotic Listening ◽  
Simon Task ◽  
Congruent Trial ◽  
Irrelevant Information ◽  
Visual Test ◽  
English Bilingual ◽  
Visual Tasks ◽  
Listening Task ◽  
English Monolingual

Purpose Bilingual individuals have been shown to be more proficient on visual tasks of inhibition compared with their monolingual counterparts. However, the bilingual advantage has not been evidenced in all studies, and very little is known regarding how bilingualism influences inhibitory control in the perception of auditory information. The purpose of the current study was to examine inhibition of irrelevant information using auditory and visual tasks in English monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual adults. Method Twenty English monolinguals and 19 early balanced Spanish–English bilinguals participated in this study. All participants were 18–30 years of age, had hearing thresholds < 25 dB HL from 250 to 8000 Hz, bilaterally (American National Standards Institute, 2003), and were right handed. Inhibition was measured using a forced-attention dichotic consonant–vowel listening task and the Simon task, a nonverbal visual test. Results Both groups of participants demonstrated a significant right ear advantage on the dichotic listening task; however, no significant differences in performance were evidenced between the monolingual and bilingual groups in any of the dichotic listening conditions. Both groups performed better on the congruent trial than on the incongruent trial of the Simon task and had significantly faster response times on the congruent trial than on the incongruent trial. However, there were no significant differences in performance between the monolingual and bilingual groups on the visual test of inhibition. Conclusions No significant differences in performance on auditory and visual tests of inhibition of irrelevant information were evidenced between the monolingual and bilingual participants in this study. These findings suggest that bilinguals may not exhibit an advantage in the inhibition of irrelevant information compared with monolinguals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document