ArticleHuman brain mapping2018
Context-dependent role of selective attention for change detection in multi-speaker scenes.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute psychological stress facilitates the forgetting of neutral but not negative information.Psychological research · 2025Article
- A listening advantage for native speech is reflected by attention-related activity in auditory cortex.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Context-dependent role of selective attention for change detection in multi-speaker scenes.Human brain mapping · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disappearance of a voice or other sound source may often go unnoticed when the auditory scene is crowded. We explored the role of selective attention for this change deafness with magnetoencephalography in multi-speaker scenes. Each scene was presented two times in direct succession, and one target speaker was frequently omitted in Scene 2. When listeners were previously cued to the target speaker, activity in auditory cortex time locked to the target speaker's sound envelope was selectively enhanced in Scene 1, as was determined by a cross-correlation analysis. Moreover, the response was stronger for hit trials than for miss trials, confirming that selective attention played a role for subsequent change detection. If selective attention to the streams where the change occurred was generally required for successful change detection, neural enhancement of this stream would also be expected without cue in hit compared to miss trials. However, when listeners were not previously cued to the target, no enhanced activity for the target speaker was observed for hit trials, and there was no significant difference between hit and miss trials. These results, first, confirm a role for attention in change detection for situations where the target source is known. Second, they suggest that the omission of a speaker, or more generally an auditory stream, can alternatively be detected without selective attentional enhancement of the target stream. Several models and strategies could be envisaged for change detection in this case, including global comparison of the subsequent scenes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.