scholarly journals Author response: Individual differences in selective attention predict speech identification at a cocktail party

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Oberfeld ◽  
Felicitas Klöckner-Nowotny
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Author Response ◽  
Cocktail Party ◽  
Speech Identification

scholarly journals Individual differences in selective attention predict speech identification at a cocktail party

eLife ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Oberfeld ◽  
Felicitas Klöckner-Nowotny
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Memory Span ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Visual Selective Attention ◽  
Similar Proportion ◽  
Temporal Fine Structure ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Speech Identification

Listeners with normal hearing show considerable individual differences in speech understanding when competing speakers are present, as in a crowded restaurant. Here, we show that one source of this variance are individual differences in the ability to focus selective attention on a target stimulus in the presence of distractors. In 50 young normal-hearing listeners, the performance in tasks measuring auditory and visual selective attention was associated with sentence identification in the presence of spatially separated competing speakers. Together, the measures of selective attention explained a similar proportion of variance as the binaural sensitivity for the acoustic temporal fine structure. Working memory span, age, and audiometric thresholds showed no significant association with speech understanding. These results suggest that a reduced ability to focus attention on a target is one reason why some listeners with normal hearing sensitivity have difficulty communicating in situations with background noise.

Individual Differences in Attention and the Prediction of Flight Criteria

1971 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1335-1342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Gopher ◽  
Daniel Kahneman
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Dichotic Listening ◽  
High Performance ◽  
The Other ◽  
Listening Test ◽  
Transient Instability ◽  
High Performance Aircraft

A dichotic listening test was constructed which requires S to monitor a relevant message and to ignore a concurrent message presented to the other ear. The test has promising validity for predicting different criteria of proficiency in flying high-performance aircraft. An analysis of the most valid type of errors suggests that a change in an existing orientation is accompanied by a transient instability of selective attention. Most errors in continuous attention are omissions, which indicate a failure of the listening set. Intrusions, which indicate a failure of selectivity, are rare and their frequency is not correlated to flight criteria.

scholarly journals Early Auditory Evoked Potential Is Modulated by Selective Attention and Related to Individual Differences in Visual Working Memory Capacity

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 2682-2690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan J. Giuliano ◽  
Christina M. Karns ◽  
Helen J. Neville ◽  
Steven A. Hillyard
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Auditory Evoked Potential ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Auditory Selective Attention ◽  
Visual Change Detection ◽  
Listening Task

A growing body of research suggests that the predictive power of working memory (WM) capacity for measures of intellectual aptitude is due to the ability to control attention and select relevant information. Crucially, attentional mechanisms implicated in controlling access to WM are assumed to be domain-general, yet reports of enhanced attentional abilities in individuals with larger WM capacities are primarily within the visual domain. Here, we directly test the link between WM capacity and early attentional gating across sensory domains, hypothesizing that measures of visual WM capacity should predict an individual's capacity to allocate auditory selective attention. To address this question, auditory ERPs were recorded in a linguistic dichotic listening task, and individual differences in ERP modulations by attention were correlated with estimates of WM capacity obtained in a separate visual change detection task. Auditory selective attention enhanced ERP amplitudes at an early latency (ca. 70–90 msec), with larger P1 components elicited by linguistic probes embedded in an attended narrative. Moreover, this effect was associated with greater individual estimates of visual WM capacity. These findings support the view that domain-general attentional control mechanisms underlie the wide variation of WM capacity across individuals.

scholarly journals Orientation-invariance of individual differences in three face processing tasks

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 181350
Author(s):  
G. Meinhardt ◽  
B. Meinhardt-Injac ◽  
M. Persike
Keyword(s):  
Face Recognition ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Face Perception ◽  
Face Processing ◽  
Common Factor ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Common Variance ◽  
Strong Inversion ◽  
Orientation Invariance

Numerous studies have reported impairments in perception and recognition, and, particularly, in part-integration of faces following picture-plane inversion. Whether these findings support the notion that inversion changes face processing qualitatively remains a topic of debate. To examine whether associations and dissociations of the human face processing ability depend on stimulus orientation, we measured face recognition with the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT), along with experimental tests of face perception and selective attention to faces and non-face objects in a sample of 314 participants. Results showed strong inversion effects for all face-related tasks, and modest ones for non-face objects. Individual differences analysis revealed that the CFMT shared common variance with face perception and face-selective attention, however, independent of orientation. Regardless of whether predictor and criterion had same or different orientation, face recognition was best predicted by the same test battery. Principal component decomposition revealed a common factor for face recognition and face perception, a second common factor for face recognition and face-selective attention, and two unique factors. The patterns of factor loadings were nearly identical for upright and inverted presentation. These results indicate orientation-invariance of common variance in three domains of face processing. Since inversion impaired performance, but did not affect domain-related associations and dissociations, the findings suggest process-specific but orientation-general mechanisms. Specific limitations by constraints of individual differences analysis and test selection are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document