Dichotic speech perception: An interpretation of right-ear advantage and temporal offset effects

Berlín, Charles I.; Lowe‐Bell, Sena S.; Cullen, John K.; Thompson, Christopher F.; Loovis, Carl F.

doi:10.1121/1.1913381

Cited by 135 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The' nearly equal backward and simultaneous performance coupled with the observation of greater backward than forward effects at comparable asynchronies jointly define what has been called the dichotic lag effect. This type of result was originally observed for dichotically presented stop-vowels by Studdert-Kennedy , Shankweiler, and Schulman (1970), and it has since been observed in a number of other studies (Berlin, Lowe-Bell, Cullen, Thompson, & Loovis, 1973;Kirstein, 1971;Porter, 1971Porter, , 1974Porter, , 1975.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 50%

Dichotic and monotic interactions between speech and nonspeech sounds at different stimulus onset asynchronies

Porter

Mirabile

1977

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjects' identification of stop-vowel "targets" was obtained under monotic and dichotic, forward and backward, masking conditions. Masks, or "challenges," were another stop-vowel or one of three nonspeech sounds similar to parts of a stop-vowel. Backward masking was greater than forward in dichotic conditions. Forward masking predominated monotically. Relative degree of masking for different challenges suggested that dichotic effects were predicated on interference with processing of a complex temporal array of auditory "features" of the targets, prior to phonetic decoding but subsequent to basic auditory analysis. Monotic effects seemed best interpreted as dependent on relative spectrum levels of nearly simultaneous portions of the two signals.Dichotic presentation of certain speech sounds appears to result in at least two forms of interaction. One form, which we will refer to as phonetic competition, can be revealed by changes in subjects' performance which appear to be more a function of the phonetic message of the signals than of their acoustic structures (e.g., Studdert-Kennedy, Shankweiler, & Pisani, 1972). A second type of interaction, which we will refer to as central auditory masking, can be revealed by changes in subjects' performance which appear to be more a function of the acoustic properties of the competing signals than of their phonetic messages (e.g., Berlin, Porter, Lowe-Bell, Berlin, Thompson, & Hughes, 1973). The present study deals primarily with this second type of interaction and extends the findings of the earlier work.Berlin, Porter et al. (1973) asked subjects to identify speech-sound targets (stop-vowels) presented in dichotic competition with three types of speech and nonspeech masks, Or "challenges." The dichotic challenge could be a steady-state vowel, a nonspeech two-formant "bleat" (which consisted of the second and third formants

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 50%

Dichotic and monotic interactions between speech and nonspeech sounds at different stimulus onset asynchronies

Porter

Mirabile

1977

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It may be noted, however, that the performance level in Condition 4D, where the drone led the melody, was higher than in the other three subconditions. Though this difference did not reach statistical significance, it might indicate a lag effect such as found in dichotic tasks involving speech materials (Berlin, Lowe-Bell, Cullen, Thompson, & Loovis, 1973;Studdert-Kennedy, Shankweiler, & Schulman, 1970).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 70%

Binaural integration of melodic patterns

Deutsch

1979

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been argued that there is a limit to the rate at which we can switch attention between ears in monitoring auditory information. Listeners identified melodic configurations formed by rapid sequences of tones. When these sequences were presented binaurally, excellent performance was obtained. Yet when the component tones of the melody were distributed between the ears, performance was largely nullified when a drone (i.e., a lower constantfrequency tone) was presented to the ear opposite that receiving the melody component. This improvement in performance cannot be attributed to processing the harmonic relationships between melody and drone, since when, instead, the drone was presented to the same ear as the melody component, performance was at chance. Onset-offset asynchronies between the drone and melody components resulted in performance levels between those where the drone and melody components were synchronous and those where the melody switched between ears without an accompanying drone. It is argued that difficulties in binaural integration are due not to processing limitations, but to a mechanism that is invoked under certain conditions to prevent confusion in monitoring individual sound sources.It has been argued on a number of grounds that we have difficulty in integrating rapid streams of acoustic information when these are presented separately to the two ears. For instance, Cherry and Taylor (1954) studied the intelligibility of speech which was switched alternately between the ears, and found a substantial drop in intelligibility at alternation rates of around 3 cps. They interpreted their results in terms of a limitation in the rate at which we can switch our attention from ear to ear. This explanation was, however, challenged by Huggins (1964), who found that the maximum dip in intelligibility shifted in parallel with a shift in the speech rate. He therefore argued that this effect was due to interference in the processing of basic units of speech, rather than to a limitation in attention switching time.A second line of evidence involves the recall of lists of dichotically presented digits. Broadbent (1954Broadbent ( , 1958 found that when two lists of digits are simultaneously presented at fast rates, one to each ear, subjects recall these better by ear than by temporal order, which would require switching between ears. Treisman (1971) further found that subjects were less able to recall successive lists of digits when these were presented alternately to the two ears than when they were presented binaurally. These effects cannot be ascribed to a perceptual interference with basic This work was supported by United States Public Health Service Grant MH-21001. I am especially indebted to R. Erickson for valuable discussions concerning channeling principles in music. Requests for reprints should be sent to

show abstract

“…As diferenças entre as orelhas direita e esquerda nos testes verbais de escuta dicótica refletem as diferenças funcionais entre os hemisférios cerebrais e o fato de cada orelha ter conecção mais forte com o hemisfério contralateral (26)(27) . A vantagem de respostas corretas da orelha direita nos testes de escuta dicótica poderia ser interpretada como refletindo o hemisfério cerebral esquerdo, especializado para o processamento de fala e linguagem (27)(28) . Os resultados encontrados neste estudo que indicam a vantagem da orelha direita nos testes de escuta dicótica, corroboram os descritos na literatura (9,29) .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Processamento auditivo em gagos: análise do desempenho das orelhas direita e esquerda

Andrade

Gil

Schiefer

et al. 2008

Rev. soc. bras. fonoaudiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESuMo objetivo:Comparar a diferença entre as orelhas nos testes comportamentais do processamento auditivo e os resultados de sujeitos com diferentes graus de gravidade de gagueira em cada teste do processamento auditivo. Métodos: Cinqüenta e seis indivíduos, com idades entre quatro e 34 anos, foram encaminhados pelo Ambulatório de Avaliação Fonoaudiológica da UNIFESP para avaliação comportamental do processamento auditivo. Todos os pacientes foram submetidos à avaliação de audição, fala e linguagem. A disfluência foi classificada segundo o protocolo de Riley (1994), o qual prevê os seguintes graus de gravidade da gagueira: muito leve, leve, moderado, severo e muito severo. Os testes para avaliação do processamento auditivo foram selecionados e analisados de acordo com a idade do paciente e a proposta de Pereira & Schochat (1997). Resultados: Observamos prevalência da gagueira de grau leve nas faixas etárias de quatro a sete anos e de 12 a 34 anos de idade, e de grau moderado nos indivíduos de oito a 11 anos de idade. Dos 56 indivíduos avaliados 92,85% apresentaram alteração do processamento auditivo. Houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre as orelhas direita e esquerda na etapa de atenção direcionada do teste dicótico não verbal, em todas as faixas etárias estudadas.Não foram encontradas diferenças significativas entre os graus de gravidade da gagueira em nenhum dos testes de processamento auditivo. Conclusões: A orelha direita apresentou melhor desempenho do que a esquerda nos diferentes testes comportamentais. O grau de gravidade da gagueira não interferiu no resultado de cada teste.DESCRIToRES: Gagueira; Transtornos da percepção auditiva; Audição; Transtornos da fala INTRoDuçãoA fluência verbal pode ser definida como a fala de fluxo contínuo e suave decorrente de uma integração harmônica entre os processamentos neurais envolvidos na linguagem e no ato motor (1)(2) . Para que a fala seja fluente os sistemas simbólicos e de sinais, devem estar equilibrados temporalmente antes que a mensagem gerada chegue ao córtex motor (3) . Se estes sistemas desequilibram-se o fluxo da fala é temporariamente rompido, gerando as disfluências (4) . Assim, a disfluência é um distúrbio que ocorre no momento da produção da fala, na qual o falante se depara com um impedimento que o impossibilita, momentaneamente, de produzir a palavra que deseja falar (5) . Existe uma redução na habilidade de produção dos padrões de percepção auditiva em indivíduos gagos, quando comparados aos não gagos (6) . A imprecisão temporal na percepção de fala pode levar a momentos de disfluência e a diminuição das habilidades de processamento pode estar relacionada à incapacidade de manutenção da fala fluente (7)(8) . Denominamos processamento auditivo (PA) o conjunto de habilidades específicas das quais o indivíduo depende para interpretar o que ouve (9) . Quando o indivíduo perde parcialmente ou totalmente a função da análise das imagens auditivas, estamos diante de um distúrbio do processamento auditivo.O PA pode ser um dos fatores que cont...

show abstract

Dichotic speech perception: An interpretation of right-ear advantage and temporal offset effects

Cited by 135 publications

References 0 publications

Dichotic and monotic interactions between speech and nonspeech sounds at different stimulus onset asynchronies

Dichotic and monotic interactions between speech and nonspeech sounds at different stimulus onset asynchronies

Binaural integration of melodic patterns

Processamento auditivo em gagos: análise do desempenho das orelhas direita e esquerda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About