ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2022
Cat-astrophic effects of sudden interruptions on spatial auditory attention.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Voice and linguistic features support early attentional filtering of irrelevant stimuli.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Acoustic Salience Drives Pupillary Dynamics in an Interrupted, Reverberant Task.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Reverberation exacerbates effects of interruption on auditory spatial selective attention.JASA express letters · 2026Article
- Distinct talkers combat catastrophic failures of spatial attention due to interruption.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Reverberation exacerbates effects of interruption on auditory spatial selective attention.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Defining attention from an auditory perspective.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science · 2023Article
- Effects of Task-Irrelevant Talker Identity and Continuity on Spatial Selective Attention Under Interruption.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Salient interruptions draw attention involuntarily. Here, we explored whether this effect depends on the spatial and temporal relationships between a target stream and interrupter. In a series of online experiments, listeners focused spatial attention on a target stream of spoken syllables in the presence of an otherwise identical distractor stream from the opposite hemifield. On some random trials, an interrupter (a cat "MEOW") occurred. Experiment 1 established that the interrupter, which occurred randomly in 25% of the trials in the hemifield opposite the target, degraded target recall. Moreover, a majority of participants exhibited this degradation for the first target syllable, which finished before the interrupter began. Experiment 2 showed that the effect of an interrupter was similar whether it occurred in the opposite or the same hemifield as the target. Experiment 3 found that the interrupter degraded performance slightly if it occurred before the target stream began but had no effect if it began after the target stream ended. Experiment 4 showed decreased interruption effects when the interruption frequency increased (50% of the trials). These results demonstrate that a salient interrupter disrupts recall of a target stream, regardless of its direction, especially if it occurs during a target stream.
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.