Back

Intelligible distracting speech disrupts early auditory attention

Richardson, B. N.; Guru Adimurthy, M.; Brown, C. A.; Ihlefeld, A.; Rosen, M. J.; Shinn-Cunningham, B. G.

2026-08-24 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.08.19.745879 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Intelligible speech disrupts selective auditory attention more than an unintelligible stream. However, low-level acoustic features of intelligible speech are relatively similar to target speech, confounding results. While controlling acoustic similarity and limiting energetic masking, we examined how masker intelligibility affects behavior and electroencephalography (EEG). Normal hearing listeners detected color words within a target stream of randomly timed words while ignoring an ongoing masker. Maskers were either spoken by the same or a different talker and comprised either isochronous sequences of intelligible words or temporally scrambled versions. Scrambled maskers either lacked broadband energy changes over time (Experiment 1) or were amplitude modulated to have the same energy profiles as intelligible, isochronous maskers (Experiment 2). In both experiments, scrambled maskers yielded better performance than intelligible maskers. For intelligible maskers, performance was better for different compared to identical talkers. EEG responses paralleled behavior: target-evoked onset responses were larger for scrambled than for intelligible maskers, particularly for identical talkers. Later target recognition responses were larger for color than other target words but unaffected by masker type or talker. Even when low-level acoustic features were carefully matched, intelligible maskers impaired auditory attention and reduced target-evoked neural responses more than scrambled maskers, implicating early sensory filtering.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.