4.5 Article

Cat-astrophic effects of sudden interruptions on spatial auditory attention

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 151, 期 5, 页码 3219-3233

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/10.0010453

关键词

-

资金

  1. Montgomery Research Fellow Fund from the CMU Neuroscience Institute
  2. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [R01DC019126, R21DC018408]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the impact of interrupters on target stream recall, finding that interrupters disrupt target stream recall regardless of their direction, especially when they occur during the target stream.
Salient interruptions draw attention involuntarily. Here, we explored whether this effect depends on the spatial and temporal relationships between a target stream and interrupter. In a series of online experiments, listeners focused spatial attention on a target stream of spoken syllables in the presence of an otherwise identical distractor stream from the opposite hemifield. On some random trials, an interrupter (a cat MEOW ) occurred. Experiment 1 established that the interrupter, which occurred randomly in 25% of the trials in the hemifield opposite the target, degraded target recall. Moreover, a majority of participants exhibited this degradation for the first target syllable, which finished before the interrupter began. Experiment 2 showed that the effect of an interrupter was similar whether it occurred in the opposite or the same hemifield as the target. Experiment 3 found that the interrupter degraded performance slightly if it occurred before the target stream began but had no effect if it began after the target stream ended. Experiment 4 showed decreased interruption effects when the interruption frequency increased (50% of the trials). These results demonstrate that a salient interrupter disrupts recall of a target stream, regardless of its direction, especially if it occurs during a target stream. (C) 2022 Acoustical Society of America.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据