Sound segregation via embedded repetition is robust to inattention.

Keiko Masutomi, Nicolas Barascud, Makio Kashino, Josh H McDermott, Maria Chait
Author Information
  1. Keiko Masutomi: Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology.
  2. Nicolas Barascud: Ear Institute, University College London.
  3. Makio Kashino: Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology.
  4. Josh H McDermott: Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  5. Maria Chait: Ear Institute, University College London.

Abstract

The segregation of sound sources from the mixture of sounds that enters the ear is a core capacity of human hearing, but the extent to which this process is dependent on attention remains unclear. This study investigated the effect of attention on the ability to segregate sounds via repetition. We utilized a dual task design in which stimuli to be segregated were presented along with stimuli for a "decoy" task that required continuous monitoring. The task to assess segregation presented a target sound 10 times in a row, each time concurrent with a different distractor sound. McDermott, Wrobleski, and Oxenham (2011) demonstrated that repetition causes the target sound to be segregated from the distractors. Segregation was queried by asking listeners whether a subsequent probe sound was identical to the target. A control task presented similar stimuli but probed discrimination without engaging segregation processes. We present results from 3 different decoy tasks: a visual multiple object tracking task, a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) digit encoding task, and a demanding auditory monitoring task. Load was manipulated by using high- and low-demand versions of each decoy task. The data provide converging evidence of a small effect of attention that is nonspecific, in that it affected the segregation and control tasks to a similar extent. In all cases, segregation performance remained high despite the presence of a concurrent, objectively demanding decoy task. The results suggest that repetition-based segregation is robust to inattention.

References

  1. Cereb Cortex. 2005 Oct;15(10):1609-20 [PMID: 15716469]
  2. Hear Res. 2011 Oct;280(1-2):228-35 [PMID: 21683778]
  3. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Jan;18(1):1-13 [PMID: 16417678]
  4. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011 Aug;37(4):1253-62 [PMID: 21480747]
  5. Front Psychol. 2012 Feb 07;3:15 [PMID: 22347201]
  6. Science. 1973 Oct 12;182(4108):177-80 [PMID: 4730062]
  7. Biol Psychol. 2008 Jul;78(3):231-41 [PMID: 18439740]
  8. Front Psychol. 2013 Aug 20;4:534 [PMID: 23970873]
  9. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Jan;72(1):33-52 [PMID: 20802834]
  10. Science. 2001 Mar 2;291(5509):1803-6 [PMID: 11230699]
  11. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jan 18;108(3):1188-93 [PMID: 21199948]
  12. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Feb;9(2):75-82 [PMID: 15668100]
  13. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Jul;22(7):1440-51 [PMID: 19580389]
  14. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004 Aug;30(4):643-56 [PMID: 15301615]
  15. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6 [PMID: 9176952]
  16. Curr Biol. 2005 Jun 21;15(12):1108-13 [PMID: 15964275]
  17. J Acoust Soc Am. 1984 Dec;76(6):1636-47 [PMID: 6520301]
  18. Psychophysiology. 1998 May;35(3):283-92 [PMID: 9564748]
  19. Neuroimage. 2012 Jan 16;59(2):1932-41 [PMID: 21945789]
  20. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Feb;27(1):115-27 [PMID: 11248927]
  21. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1999 Dec;25(6):1742-59 [PMID: 10641316]
  22. Cognition. 2013 Nov;129(2):345-55 [PMID: 23969299]
  23. Spat Vis. 1988;3(3):179-97 [PMID: 3153671]
  24. Psychophysiology. 2006 Nov;43(6):541-9 [PMID: 17076810]
  25. PLoS Biol. 2009 Jun;7(6):e1000129 [PMID: 19529760]
  26. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Dec;118(12):2544-90 [PMID: 17931964]
  27. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e114427 [PMID: 25490720]
  28. Front Neurosci. 2014 Mar 31;8:60 [PMID: 24744695]
  29. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1991 Sep;79(3):170-91 [PMID: 1714809]
  30. Psychophysiology. 2003 May;40(3):430-5 [PMID: 12946116]
  31. PLoS Biol. 2008 Jun 10;6(6):e138 [PMID: 18547141]
  32. Curr Biol. 2009 Dec 1;19(22):R1024-7 [PMID: 19948136]
  33. Neuron. 2010 May 27;66(4):610-8 [PMID: 20510864]
  34. Brain Res. 2007 Sep 19;1170:71-8 [PMID: 17692834]
  35. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Dec;25(3):891-9 [PMID: 16289727]
  36. Eur J Neurosci. 2009 Jun;29(12):2426-34 [PMID: 19490081]
  37. J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 Oct 1;15(7):1063-73 [PMID: 14614816]
  38. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 1999 Jan;7(3):335-41 [PMID: 9838184]
  39. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Oct;8(10):465-71 [PMID: 15450511]
  40. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1992 May;82(5):356-68 [PMID: 1374704]
  41. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2013 Jan;75(1):53-67 [PMID: 22972631]
  42. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 1999 Oct 25;8(3):213-27 [PMID: 10556600]
  43. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008 May;20(5):762-78 [PMID: 18201133]
  44. Hear Res. 1990 Aug 1;47(1-2):103-38 [PMID: 2228789]
  45. Neuroimage. 2010 Mar;50(1):277-84 [PMID: 20026231]
  46. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Jul;128(1):EL1-7 [PMID: 20649182]
  47. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008 Jul;20(7):1131-45 [PMID: 18284343]
  48. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 17;109(29):11854-9 [PMID: 22753470]
  49. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2000;23:315-41 [PMID: 10845067]
  50. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Feb;29(1):43-51 [PMID: 12669746]
  51. Neuropsychologia. 2010 Apr;48(5):1417-25 [PMID: 20079754]
  52. J Neurosci. 2007 Aug 29;27(35):9252-61 [PMID: 17728439]
  53. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995 Jun;97(6):3736-48 [PMID: 7790652]
  54. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42 [PMID: 9176953]
  55. J Neurosci. 2011 Jan 19;31(3):922-7 [PMID: 21248117]
  56. Front Psychol. 2011 Apr 05;2:56 [PMID: 21734893]
  57. Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Apr;16(2):411-7 [PMID: 19293115]
  58. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993 Jun;93(6):3454-67 [PMID: 8326071]
  59. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0118962 [PMID: 25785997]
  60. Cognition. 2007 Mar;102(3):321-40 [PMID: 16480973]
  61. Percept Psychophys. 1994 Nov;56(5):501-16 [PMID: 7991348]
  62. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2015 Feb;77(2):483-92 [PMID: 25287617]
  63. Neuron. 2001 Nov 20;32(4):737-45 [PMID: 11719212]
  64. Curr Biol. 2013 Aug 19;23(16):1585-9 [PMID: 23891107]
  65. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005 Sep;5(3):319-38 [PMID: 16396093]
  66. Neuropsychologia. 2001;39(9):937-49 [PMID: 11516446]
  67. Neuroimage. 2006 Nov 1;33(2):715-24 [PMID: 16956775]
  68. Trends Neurosci. 2011 Mar;34(3):114-23 [PMID: 21196054]
  69. Percept Psychophys. 2002 Jul;64(5):844-54 [PMID: 12201342]
  70. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014 Nov;76(8):2326-45 [PMID: 24946866]
  71. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Apr;40(2):685-701 [PMID: 24188403]
  72. J Vis. 2009;9(7):9 [PMID: 19761324]
  73. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1992 May;82(5):341-55 [PMID: 1374703]
  74. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Nov;62(11):2126-32 [PMID: 19557667]
  75. Neuroimage. 1998 Jan;7(1):23-9 [PMID: 9500831]
  76. Exp Brain Res. 2010 Jun;203(2):261-70 [PMID: 20369233]
  77. Neuropsychologia. 2009 Jun;47(7):1637-46 [PMID: 19397858]
  78. Curr Biol. 2015 Aug 31;25(17):2238-46 [PMID: 26279234]
  79. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014 May 5;369(1641):20130205 [PMID: 24639578]
  80. Brain Res. 2008 Oct 9;1234:78-86 [PMID: 18674520]
  81. Cereb Cortex. 2010 Jun;20(6):1360-71 [PMID: 19789185]
  82. Cognition. 2008 Jul;108(1):1-25 [PMID: 18281028]
  83. J Neurosci. 2013 Nov 27;33(48):19023-33 [PMID: 24285906]
  84. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994 Jun;95(6):3475-80 [PMID: 8046139]
  85. J Physiol Paris. 2006 Jul-Sep;100(1-3):154-70 [PMID: 17084600]
  86. Brain Res. 2006 Mar 17;1078(1):112-30 [PMID: 16497283]
  87. Perception. 2003;32(11):1393-402 [PMID: 14959799]
  88. J Vis. 2007;7(13):14.1-10 [PMID: 17997642]

Grants

  1. 093292/Z/10/Z/Wellcome Trust

MeSH Term

Acoustic Stimulation
Adult
Attention
Auditory Perception
Cues
Female
Humans
Male
Sound
Sound Spectrography

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0tasksegregationsoundattentionrepetitionstimulipresentedtargetdecoysoundsextenteffectviasegregatedmonitoringconcurrentdifferentcontrolsimilarresultsvisualdemandingrobustinattentionsourcesmixtureentersearcorecapacityhumanhearingprocessdependentremainsunclearstudyinvestigatedabilitysegregateutilizeddualdesignalong"decoy"requiredcontinuousassess10timesrowtimedistractorMcDermottWrobleskiOxenham2011demonstratedcausesdistractorsSegregationqueriedaskinglistenerswhethersubsequentprobeidenticalprobeddiscriminationwithoutengagingprocessespresent3tasks:multipleobjecttrackingrapidserialpresentationRSVPdigitencodingauditoryLoadmanipulatedusinghigh-low-demandversionsdataprovideconvergingevidencesmallnonspecificaffectedtaskscasesperformanceremainedhighdespitepresenceobjectivelysuggestrepetition-basedSoundembedded

Similar Articles

Cited By