2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2021.104996
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Talker discontinuity disrupts attention to speech: Evidence from EEG and pupillometry

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 117 publications
3
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One straightforward explanation of these results is that the identification of tones produced by the M1 talker may be more perceptually difficult than those produced by the F1 talker due to the reduced acoustic differences between the level tones (see Figure 1). An alternative explanation is related to processing interference that talker changes might have introduced in speech perception (Lim et al, 2021;. The pattern that talker changes between blocks yielded lower accuracy is in line with the results of recent neural studies which showed that presenting stimuli produced by different talkers cues of the target sounds and resulted in processing interference/cost (Lim et al, 2021).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One straightforward explanation of these results is that the identification of tones produced by the M1 talker may be more perceptually difficult than those produced by the F1 talker due to the reduced acoustic differences between the level tones (see Figure 1). An alternative explanation is related to processing interference that talker changes might have introduced in speech perception (Lim et al, 2021;. The pattern that talker changes between blocks yielded lower accuracy is in line with the results of recent neural studies which showed that presenting stimuli produced by different talkers cues of the target sounds and resulted in processing interference/cost (Lim et al, 2021).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…An alternative explanation is related to processing interference that talker changes might have introduced in speech perception (Lim et al, 2021;. The pattern that talker changes between blocks yielded lower accuracy is in line with the results of recent neural studies which showed that presenting stimuli produced by different talkers cues of the target sounds and resulted in processing interference/cost (Lim et al, 2021).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…Additionally,Colby and McMurray (2021) have observed sustained effects for single words that are spectrally degraded. These results are consistent responses elicited by accented speech(Porretta & Tucker 2019), and speech with talker variability(Lim et al 2021).…”
supporting
confidence: 82%
“…Indeed, a major benefit of pupillometry is that it can reflect differences in the effort required to reach a certain performance level in the absence of behavioral differences (e.g., McGarrigle et al, 2017;Ohlenforst et al, 2017;Winn & Teece, 2021). Pupil responses have also provided useful insights into the temporal dynamics of effort allocation in cognitive processes that unfold through time, such as decision making (Satterthwaite et al, 2007) and handling talker variability (Lim et al, 2021). In this study, when the WM task was AT, pupil size increased prior to the onset of the Intervening task stimuli.…”
Section: Unique Contributions From Pupillometrymentioning
confidence: 99%