Cargando…
Temporal contrast effects in human speech perception are immune to selective attention
Two fundamental properties of perception are selective attention and perceptual contrast, but how these two processes interact remains unknown. Does an attended stimulus history exert a larger contrastive influence on the perception of a following target than unattended stimuli? Dutch listeners cate...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7101381/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32221376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62613-8 |
_version_ | 1783511609961873408 |
---|---|
author | Bosker, Hans Rutger Sjerps, Matthias J. Reinisch, Eva |
author_facet | Bosker, Hans Rutger Sjerps, Matthias J. Reinisch, Eva |
author_sort | Bosker, Hans Rutger |
collection | PubMed |
description | Two fundamental properties of perception are selective attention and perceptual contrast, but how these two processes interact remains unknown. Does an attended stimulus history exert a larger contrastive influence on the perception of a following target than unattended stimuli? Dutch listeners categorized target sounds with a reduced prefix “ge-” marking tense (e.g., ambiguous between gegaan-gaan “gone-go”). In ‘single talker’ Experiments 1–2, participants perceived the reduced syllable (reporting gegaan) when the target was heard after a fast sentence, but not after a slow sentence (reporting gaan). In ‘selective attention’ Experiments 3–5, participants listened to two simultaneous sentences from two different talkers, followed by the same target sounds, with instructions to attend only one of the two talkers. Critically, the speech rates of attended and unattended talkers were found to equally influence target perception – even when participants could watch the attended talker speak. In fact, participants’ target perception in ‘selective attention’ Experiments 3–5 did not differ from participants who were explicitly instructed to divide their attention equally across the two talkers (Experiment 6). This suggests that contrast effects of speech rate are immune to selective attention, largely operating prior to attentional stream segregation in the auditory processing hierarchy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7101381 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71013812020-03-31 Temporal contrast effects in human speech perception are immune to selective attention Bosker, Hans Rutger Sjerps, Matthias J. Reinisch, Eva Sci Rep Article Two fundamental properties of perception are selective attention and perceptual contrast, but how these two processes interact remains unknown. Does an attended stimulus history exert a larger contrastive influence on the perception of a following target than unattended stimuli? Dutch listeners categorized target sounds with a reduced prefix “ge-” marking tense (e.g., ambiguous between gegaan-gaan “gone-go”). In ‘single talker’ Experiments 1–2, participants perceived the reduced syllable (reporting gegaan) when the target was heard after a fast sentence, but not after a slow sentence (reporting gaan). In ‘selective attention’ Experiments 3–5, participants listened to two simultaneous sentences from two different talkers, followed by the same target sounds, with instructions to attend only one of the two talkers. Critically, the speech rates of attended and unattended talkers were found to equally influence target perception – even when participants could watch the attended talker speak. In fact, participants’ target perception in ‘selective attention’ Experiments 3–5 did not differ from participants who were explicitly instructed to divide their attention equally across the two talkers (Experiment 6). This suggests that contrast effects of speech rate are immune to selective attention, largely operating prior to attentional stream segregation in the auditory processing hierarchy. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7101381/ /pubmed/32221376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62613-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Bosker, Hans Rutger Sjerps, Matthias J. Reinisch, Eva Temporal contrast effects in human speech perception are immune to selective attention |
title | Temporal contrast effects in human speech perception are immune to selective attention |
title_full | Temporal contrast effects in human speech perception are immune to selective attention |
title_fullStr | Temporal contrast effects in human speech perception are immune to selective attention |
title_full_unstemmed | Temporal contrast effects in human speech perception are immune to selective attention |
title_short | Temporal contrast effects in human speech perception are immune to selective attention |
title_sort | temporal contrast effects in human speech perception are immune to selective attention |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7101381/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32221376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62613-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT boskerhansrutger temporalcontrasteffectsinhumanspeechperceptionareimmunetoselectiveattention AT sjerpsmatthiasj temporalcontrasteffectsinhumanspeechperceptionareimmunetoselectiveattention AT reinischeva temporalcontrasteffectsinhumanspeechperceptionareimmunetoselectiveattention |