Voice and linguistic features support early attentional filtering of irrelevant stimuli
Luthra, S.; Parker, E.; Brown, M.; Gezae, G.; Kim, H. S.; Liang, W.; Noyce, A.; Shinn-Cunningham, B. G.
Show abstract
In cocktail party-type environments, listeners must segregate simultaneous acoustic sources and select one for processing. Behavioral studies have established that both low-level voice differences (e.g., pitch) and high-level linguistic differences (e.g., word content) aid these processes. Electroencephalography (EEG) studies have demonstrated that the brain filters voices based on low-level features early in sensory processing, but it is unclear whether linguistic differences also support early filtering. In this EEG study, listeners attended to a lateralized auditory stream of target syllables while ignoring distractor stimuli from the opposite hemifield. In contrast to previous auditory attention studies, target stimuli were always attended and statistically identical across conditions; instead, we manipulated the distractors. Specifically, we manipulated whether targets and distractors were spoken in the same voice or different voices, as well as whether they were composed of the same or different linguistic content. Critically, distractors were temporally offset from targets, enabling an investigation of whether acoustically matched, always attended target stimuli are differentially encoded as a function of surrounding context. Differences in either voice or linguistic features supported target recall: Recall was poor only when both streams were in the same voice and had similar linguistic content. However, voice and linguistic features had independent, additive effects on neural processing. Specifically, target dissimilarity in acoustics and linguistic content both contributed to more robust, larger-magnitude target-evoked EEG responses. Overall, results demonstrate that both linguistic dissimilarity and low-level acoustic dissimilarity improve early attentional filtering of distractors in multi-source acoustic scenes.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Impoverished auditory cues limit engagement of brain networks controlling spatial selective attention 96%
- Dimension-Selective Attention and Dimensional Salience Modulate Cortical Tracking of Acoustic Dimensions 96%
- The integration of continuous audio and visual speech in a cocktail-party environment depends on attention 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Consonance perception in congenital amusia: behavioral and brain responses to harmonicity and beating cues 95%
- Beat-based and memory-based temporal expectations in rhythm: similar perceptual effects, different underlying mechanisms 95%
- Lexical influences on categorical speech perception are driven by a temporoparietal circuit 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Brain Representations of Natural Sound Statistics 97%
- Salience-dependent disruption of sustained auditory attention can be inferred from evoked pupil responses and neural tracking of task-irrelevant sounds 96%
- General auditory and speech-specific contributions to cortical envelope tracking revealed using auditory chimeras 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Non-linear relationships between the auditory mismatch responses and the level of inharmonicity of complex sounds 95%
- Bayesian Prior Uncertainty and Surprisal Elicit Distinct Neural Patterns During Sound Localization in Dynamic Environments 95%
- From computing transition probabilities to word recognition in sleeping neonates, a two-step neural tale 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Expectations boost the reconstruction of auditory features from electrophysiological responses to noisy speech 95%
- Corollary Discharge versus Efference Copy: Distinct Neural Signals in Speech Preparation Differentially Modulate Auditory Responses 95%
- An ecological investigation of the capacity to follow simultaneous speech and preferential detection of ones' own name 95%
"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.