localization of auditory stimulus in the presence of an auditory cue by albert ler
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue
By
Albert Ler
![Page 2: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Cuing Paradigm as a Means of Studying Attention
• Visual attention• Visual cuing paradigm:
– Subject needs to react to a stimulus being presented in one of several locations
– Typical result is that target detection is better when a cue primes the subject to the location of the target than without a cue
![Page 3: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Visual Cuing Paradigm (cont.)
• 2 orienting mechanisms found:
• Exogenous: take place automatically under pure stimulus control; attention is “pulled” to the location of a salient event
• Endogenous: under strategic control; attention is “pushed” to the location where the target is expected
![Page 4: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Auditory Cuing Studies of Auditory Attention
• Very few!• These studies include target detection and target
intensity discrimination • In these studies, no reliable spatial cuing effects
were found
![Page 5: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Spence and Driver, 1994
• Cues: 2000Hz tones at 72 dB(A)
• Targets: three 20ms bursts of WN at 85 dB(A), each separated by 20ms gap
Loudspeaker
![Page 6: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Spence and Driver, 1994 (cont.)
• 2 main conditions: – 1. Cue and target on the same side 50% of the time
– 2. Cue and target on the same side 75% of the time
• 3 within subjects factors:– Target laterality (left or right)
– SOA between cue and target (100ms, 400 ms, or 1000ms)
– Cue side (cue on the same [valid] or opposite [invalid] side as the target)
![Page 7: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Spence and Driver, 1994 (cont.)
• Results:• Subjects quicker to localize a target sound as
being in front of them or behind them when it was immediately preceded by a cue sound on the same side (in both conditions)
• Effect is stronger when cue predicts target 75% of the time
![Page 8: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Spence and Driver, 1994 (cont.)
• But…
• They ignored the effect of ITD
![Page 9: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Sach et al., 2000
• ITD discrimination task• Sounds were presented over headphones and
lateralized by ITD• Auditory cue was presented before the target
sound
![Page 10: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Sach et al., 2000
• Target: pairs of successive sounds lateralized to one or other side, which either shared the same ITD or whose ITDs differed by a threshold amount
• Subjects indicated whether the ITDs of the two sounds were the same or different
• Each trial comprised a cue tone followed 400 ms later by a target click pair, each of which was lateralized to either the left or right
![Page 11: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Sach et al., 2000 (cont.)
• 80% of the trials cue and target on the same side• 20% of the trials cue and target on opposite sides
• Results:– Performance was better for signals lateralized on the
expected side of the head
![Page 12: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Current study
![Page 13: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Current Study (cont.)
• 2 main conditions
• Voluntary (endogenous): Cue and target lateralized to the same side 75% of the time
• Involuntary (exogenous): Cue and target lateralized to the same side 50% of the time
![Page 14: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Current Study
• Additional factors:
• Interstimulus intertrial (ISI): aka SOA; 50 ms or 300 ms
• Cues: click or burst (30ms noise burst), 45dB• Stimuli: click or burst (three 30ms burst separated
by 10ms gaps), 45dB
![Page 15: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Current study (cont.)
• Total 16 conditions• Each condition consists of 60 measurements
(divided into 2 sessions)
![Page 16: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Current study (cont.)
• Hypotheses:• 1. Voluntary condition yield smaller angular
difference than involuntary condition• 2. Valid trials yield smaller angular difference
than invalid trials
• Across subjects analyses are performed using paired-sample t-test (t(2) = 2.92; p < 0.05)
![Page 17: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Voluntary - Involuntary
Mean of Voluntary vs. mean of Involuntary conditions
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
Voluntary Involuntary
me
an
an
gu
lar
dif
fere
nce
• t(2) = 23.12• p < 0.05 (one-tail)
![Page 18: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Within Voluntary (mean Valid – mean Invalid)
Within Voluntary Condition: Mean Valid vs. Mean Invalid
8
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
9
9.2
Valid Invalid
Ave
rag
e a
ng
ula
r d
iffe
ren
ce
• t(2) = -0.77• p > 0.05 (one-tail)
![Page 19: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Within Involuntary (mean Valid – mean Invalid)
Within Involuntary: mean Valid - mean Invalid
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8
8.1
8.2
Valid Invalid
Ave
rag
e a
ng
ula
r d
iffe
ren
ce
• t(2) = -0.59• p > 0.05 (one-tail)
![Page 20: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Voluntary Valid – Involuntary Valid
Voluntary Valid - Involuntary Valid
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4
8.6
Valid Invalid
Ave
rag
e a
ng
ula
r d
iffe
ren
ce
• t(2) = 4.56• p < 0.05 (one-tail)
![Page 21: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Voluntary Invalid – Involuntary Invalid
Voluntary Invalid - Involuntary Invalid
7.67.8
88.2
8.48.6
8.89
9.2
Valid Invalid
Ave
rag
e a
ng
ula
r d
iffe
ren
ce
• t(2) = 5.08• p < 0.05 (one-tail)
![Page 22: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Interstimulus Intertrial (300 msec)
Voluntary – Involuntary
t(2) = 10.70
P < 0.05 (one-tail)
![Page 23: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Cues
• Click cue (Voluntary – involuntary)• t(2) = 2.69; p > 0.05 (one-tail)
• Burst cue (voluntary – involuntary)• t(2) = 2.19; p> 0.05 (one-tail)
![Page 24: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Stimuli
• Burst stimulus (voluntary – involuntary)• t(2) = -2.17; p > 0.05 (one-tail)
• Burst stimulus (Voluntary valid – Voluntary invalid)
• t(2) = -2.70; p > 0.05 (one-tail)
![Page 25: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Summary
• Significant difference found between Voluntary and Involuntary conditions, between Voluntary valid and Involuntary valid, between voluntary invalid and involuntary invalid
• 300 ms ISI contributes most to voluntary – involuntary
• Subjects did worse when ISI = 300 ms
![Page 26: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
• Compare Voluntary valid and Involuntary valid (ISI = 300ms)
• t(2) = 25.02; p < 0.05 (one_tail)• Compare Voluntary invalid and Involuntary
invalid (ISI = 300ms)• t(2) = 5.53; p < 0.05 (one-tail)• Performance much worse on the valid trials.
![Page 27: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Why did subjects did worse when ISI=300ms?
• It is possible that the cue might have acted as a distractor. When the ISI was long enough so that strategic attentional control (i.e. endogenous orienting) can take place, the strategic attentional control actually made spatial localization of auditory stimulus worse.
![Page 28: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Why did subjects did worse when ISI=300ms?
• Exogenous orienting mechanism involves localization mechanism at the lower brain level and therefore better at locating stimulus
• Endogenous orienting mechanism is noisy and therefore subjects’ performance was worse
![Page 29: Localization of Auditory Stimulus in the Presence of an Auditory Cue By Albert Ler](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022032612/56649f065503460f94c1bbec/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Finally…
• No cuing advantage was found across subjects.