Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31493531›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2019

Impoverished auditory cues limit engagement of brain networks controlling spatial selective attention.

Yuqi Deng, Inyong Choi, Barbara Shinn-Cunningham, Robert Baumgartner

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Defining attention from an auditory perspective.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science · 2023
    Article
  9. Cat-astrophic effects of sudden interruptions on spatial auditory attention.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Videoconference Fatigue: A Conceptual Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Yuqi DengBiomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Inyong ChoiCommunication Sciences & Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA.
Barbara Shinn-CunninghamBiomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA, 02215, USA; Neuroscience Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Robert BaumgartnerBiomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA, 02215, USA; Acoustics Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: robert.baumgartner@oeaw.ac.at.
Boston University · USCarnegie Mellon University · USUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

Individual differences in supra-threshold sound encodingR01DC013825 · NIDCD · CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY · PI SHINN-CUNNINGHAM, BARBARA · 2015 to 2019
$1.7M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC013825
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spatial selective attention enables listeners to process a signal of interest in natural settings. However, most past studies on auditory spatial attention used impoverished spatial cues: presenting competing sounds to different ears, using only interaural differences in time (ITDs) and/or intensity (IIDs), or using non-individualized head-related transfer functions (HRTFs). Here we tested the hypothesis that impoverished spatial cues impair spatial auditory attention by only weakly engaging relevant cortical networks. Eighteen normal-hearing listeners reported the content of one of two competing syllable streams simulated at roughly +30° and -30° azimuth. The competing streams consisted of syllables from two different-sex talkers. Spatialization was based on natural spatial cues (individualized HRTFs), individualized IIDs, or generic ITDs. We measured behavioral performance as well as electroencephalographic markers of selective attention. Behaviorally, subjects recalled target streams most accurately with natural cues. Neurally, spatial attention significantly modulated early evoked sensory response magnitudes only for natural cues, not in conditions using only ITDs or IIDs. Consistent with this, parietal oscillatory power in the alpha band (8-14 ​Hz; associated with filtering out distracting events from unattended directions) showed significantly less attentional modulation with isolated spatial cues than with natural cues. Our findings support the hypothesis that spatial selective attention networks are only partially engaged by impoverished spatial auditory cues. These results not only suggest that studies using unnatural spatial cues underestimate the neural effects of spatial auditory attention, they also illustrate the importance of preserving natural spatial cues in assistive listening devices to support robust attentional control.

Indexed as

CuesAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultAttentionAuditory PerceptionBrainElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleNeural PathwaysSpatial ProcessingSpeech PerceptionYoung AdultAuditory spatial selective attentionElectroencephalographyHead-related transfer functions

Identifiers

PMID31493531
PMCPMC6819273
OpenAlexW2971392453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.