Attentional Capacity Limits Gap Detection during Concurrent Sound Segregation

Abstract

Detecting a brief silent interval (i.e., a gap) is more difficult when listeners perceive two concurrent sounds rather than one in a sound containing a mistuned harmonic in otherwise in-tune harmonics. This impairment in gap detection may reflect the interaction of low-level encoding or the division of attention between two sound objects, both of which could interfere with signal detection. To distinguish between these two alternatives, we compared ERPs during active and passive listening with complex harmonic tones that could include a gap, a mistuned harmonic, both features, or neither. During active listening, participants indicated whether they heard a gap irrespective of mistuning. During passive listening, participants watched a subtitled muted movie of their choice while the same sounds were presented. Gap detection was impaired when the complex sounds included a mistuned harmonic that popped out as a separate object. The ERP analysis revealed an early gap-related activity that was little affected by mistuning during the active or passive listening condition. However, during active listening, there was a marked decrease in the late positive wave that was thought to index attention and response-related processes. These results suggest that the limitation in detecting the gap is related to attentional processing, possibly divided attention induced by the concurrent sound objects, rather than deficits in preattentional sensory encoding.

Evidence for independent peripheral and central age‐related hearing impairment

“…First, consistent with previous studies (He, Horwitz, Dubno, & Mills, 1999;Humes et al, 2009Humes et al, , 2010Humes et al, , 2013John, Hall, & Kreisman, 2012;Ozmeral et al, 2016;Snell & Frisina, 2000;Snell, Mapes, Hickman, & Frisina, 2002), GDTs were generally poorer in older participants compared to younger subjects under identical test conditions, where age-related deficits in selective attention could be a factor (Harris et al, 2010). Previous studies suggested that older adults compensated for attentional deficits by relying more on sensory processing (Harris, Wilson, Eckert, & Dubno, 2012;Leung, Jolicoeur, & Alain, 2015 (Harkrider, Plyler, & Hedrick, 2005;Harris & Dubno, 2017;Harris, Mills, He, & Dubno, 2008;Tremblay, Billings, & Rohila, 2004).…”

Auditory Sensory Gating: Effects of Noise

“…The noise conditions (quiet, babble-modulated, and multi-talker babble-modulated noise) were presented in a random order, with a short break between each condition per participant request. Participants watched a muted movie with subtitles during EEG recordings to reduce the effects of attention [ 54 ].…”

Gaps-In-Noise Test Performance in Children with Speech Sound Disorder and Cognitive Difficulty

“…As stimuli, 0 to 3 silenced gaps are embedded within 6-second white noise. There are ten different gap durations (2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12,15, and 20 ms), and the duration or location of the gaps within the noise is pseudorandomized. As each gap appears six times in each track, a total of 60 gaps were presented.…”

“…The gap detection threshold is known to depend on a variety of stimulus characteristics such as stimulus level, stimulus bandwidth, modulation features, spectral and temporal complexity, and uncertainty [1]. Several evidences suggest that gap detection performance is related to cognitive demand or attentional resources [4][5]. For example, Leung, et al [4] measured auditory event-related potentials during active and passive listening and found that gap detection performance was associated with attentional processing, possibly related to divided attention.…”

“…Several evidences suggest that gap detection performance is related to cognitive demand or attentional resources [4][5]. For example, Leung, et al [4] measured auditory event-related potentials during active and passive listening and found that gap detection performance was associated with attentional processing, possibly related to divided attention. Günel, et al [5] suggested that the poorer performance of gap detection could be explained, in part, by associations with sustained attention, or cognitive ability, as speech input should be sustained in the memory for a sufficient duration.…”