4.5 Article

Pupillometry shows the effort of auditory attention switching

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Volume 141, Issue 4, Pages 2440-2451

Publisher

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.4979340

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01-DC013260, F32-DC012456, T32-DC000018]
  2. NIH LRP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Successful speech communication often requires selective attention to a target stream amidst competing sounds, as well as the ability to switch attention among multiple interlocutors. However, auditory attention switching negatively affects both target detection accuracy and reaction time, suggesting that attention switches carry a cognitive cost. Pupillometry is one method of assessing mental effort or cognitive load. Two experiments were conducted to determine whether the effort associated with attention switches is detectable in the pupillary response. In both experiments, pupil dilation, target detection sensitivity, and reaction time were measured; the task required listeners to either maintain or switch attention between two concurrent speech streams. Secondary manipulations explored whether switch-related effort would increase when auditory streaming was harder. In experiment 1, spatially distinct stimuli were degraded by simulating reverberation (compromising across-time streaming cues), and target-masker talker gender match was also varied. In experiment 2, diotic streams separable by talker voice quality and pitch were degraded by noise vocoding, and the time alloted for mid-trial attention switching was varied. All trial manipulations had some effect on target detection sensitivity and/or reaction time; however, only the attention-switching manipulation affected the pupillary response: greater dilation was observed in trials requiring switching attention between talkers. (C) 2017 Acoustical Society of America.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available