ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2020
Paying attention to speech: The role of working memory capacity and professional experience.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2020. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neural Speech Tracking during Selective Attention: A Spatially Realistic Audiovisual Study.eNeuro · 2025Article
- Effects of attentional instructions on the behavioral and neural mechanisms of speech auditory feedback control.Neuropsychologia · 2024Article
- Neurophysiological Evidence for Semantic Processing of Irrelevant Speech and Own-Name Detection in a Virtual Café.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Managing attention in multispeaker environments is a challenging feat that is critical for human performance. However, why some people are better than others in allocating attention appropriately remains highly unknown. Here, we investigated the contribution of two factors-working memory capacity (WMC) and professional experience-to performance on two different types of attention task: selective attention to one speaker and distributed attention among multiple concurrent speakers. We compared performance across three groups: individuals with low (n = 20) and high (n = 25) WMC, and aircraft pilots (n = 24), whose profession poses extremely high demands for both selective and distributed attention to speech. Results suggests that selective attention is highly effective, with good performance maintained under increasingly adverse conditions, whereas performance decreases substantially with the requirement to distribute attention among a larger number of speakers. Importantly, both types of attention benefit from higher WMC, suggesting reliance on some common capacity-limited resources. However, only selective attention was further improved in the pilots, pointing to its flexible and trainable nature, whereas distributed attention seems to suffer from more fixed and severe processing bottlenecks.
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.