ArticleNeuroImage2019
Impoverished auditory cues limit engagement of brain networks controlling spatial selective attention.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eye Tracking-Based Evaluation of Auditory Spatial Attention in a Virtual Auditory Environment: Protocol for Development of a New Approach and Preliminary Validation.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Attention to Psuedo-Tone Melodies Enhances Cortical but Not Brainstem Responses in Humans.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Magnified interaural level differences enhance binaural unmasking in bilateral cochlear implant users.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025Article
- The role of spatial perception in auditory looming bias: neurobehavioral evidence from impossible ears.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Factors influencing the minimum audible change in talker head orientation cues using diotic stimuli.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Cortical signatures of auditory looming bias show cue-specific adaptation between newborns and young adults.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- Brain areas associated with visual spatial attention display topographic organization during auditory spatial attention.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Defining attention from an auditory perspective.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science · 2023Article
- Cat-astrophic effects of sudden interruptions on spatial auditory attention.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
- Can visual capture of sound separate auditory streams?Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Videoconference Fatigue: A Conceptual Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Selective auditory attention modulates cortical responses to sound location change in younger and older adults.Journal of neurophysiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Impoverished auditory cues limit engagement of brain networks controlling spatial selective attention.NeuroImage · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.