Auditory attentional bandwidth: Effect of level and frequency range

Abstract

This study investigated the relations between theoretical auditory filters and "attentional filters" observed when measuring the detectability in noise of tones of expected or unexpected (probe) frequency. The effect of the level of the noise and the frequency range (narrow or wide) of the probes was assessed. For each 2IFC trial, a tone of the expected target frequency was presented as a cue preceding the two observation intervals--the signal was more often the expected than an unexpected frequency. For the narrow frequency range of probe frequencies, increasing the masker level resulted in a broadening of the probe-signal contour (percent correct as a function of probe frequency); however, detection was significantly better only for probe frequencies farthest from the target frequency. For the wide range of probe frequencies, the percentage of correct detections depended less systematically on masker level; however, detection was better and the attentional band wider than in the narrow frequency range. The results suggest that attentional focusing does not simply reflect auditory filtering: A more central and adaptive process may operate from the outputs of adjacent or more distant auditory filters.

Spatial unmasking and attention related to the cocktail party problem

“…However, at frequencies close to the edge of the attention band, the shift of psychometric function is 4 dB at most as mentioned by Ebata et al [67] and Dai et al [59]. The dynamic range obtained through the conversion of d 0 based on the correct response rate into dB attenuation is in the range of 3 dB to 10 dB as shown by Yama and Robinson [65], Dai et al [59], Schlauch and Hafter [57], Hafter et al [58], Wright and Dai [60], and Botte [62], but the reliability of converted data is not high because the large threshold shift of a few dB was only obtained under conditions near the chance level.…”

“…Examples are Scharf et al [55], Scharf [56], Schlauch and Hafter [57], and Hafter et al [58]. The shape and bandwidth of the attention filter were compared with those of the auditory filter, and their similarities were presented by Dai et al [59] Schlauch and Hafter [57], Hafter et al [58], Wright and Dai [60,61], and Botte [62]. Many other researchers obtained attention band widths significantly narrower than that of the critical band as shown by Penner [63], Macmillan and Schwartz [64], Yama and Robinson [65], Dai et al [59], and Ison et al [66].…”

Reverse hierarchies and sensory learning

“…For example, in auditory frequency discrimination tasks, performance is usually assessed around a reference, with every trial typically containing either a single stimulus around (a little below or above) a fixed frequency or two stimuli, one of which (the reference) has this fixed frequency (e.g. Harris 1948;Watson et al 1975Watson et al , 1976Demany 1985;Botte 1995;Irvine et al 2000). Similarly, in typical methods for assessing other basic auditory (e.g.…”

The effect of stimulus range on two-interval frequency discrimination

“…When the participant is presented with the same standard on every trial, he or she can focus attention on a narrow frequency region. When the standard varies, the participant may either broaden his or her attentional band to cover a wider range of frequencies (e.g., Botte, 1995), or attempt to monitor more than one band, ignoring frequencies which fall in between (e.g., Macmillan and Schwartz, 1975). If the participant adopts the former strategy, performance will decrease as the range of frequencies increases because as the attentional band is broadened, resolution is diminished.…”