ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024
Listening to trees in the forest: Attentional set influences how semantic and acoustic factors interact in auditory perception.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies of auditory object perception claim that semantic properties dominate acoustic properties in determining identification accuracy. Yet the direction of the semantic effect is mixed, with some studies showing an advantage for detecting incongruent sounds and others reporting a congruent sound advantage. Here we examine the role of the participant's attentional set when identifying auditory objects in naturalistic soundscapes. We varied the acoustic and semantic properties of the sounds orthogonally in two experiments. In Experiment 1 participants tuned their attention broadly to detect any change between two successive soundscapes (e.g., two restaurant soundscapes, with and without a child coughing). In Experiment 2 they tuned attention more narrowly to a probe presented after a soundscape (e.g., a restaurant soundscape with a child coughing, followed by the coughing sound alone). In both experiments, semantic relations between the objects and backgrounds helped to disambiguate objects that blended acoustically with the background. When attending globally (Experiment 1), objects that were acoustically similar yet semantically incongruent tended to be missed (e.g., bouncing basketball on a construction site), as though camouflaged by the gist of the soundscape. When attending locally (Experiment 2), semantically congruent foil objects led to false positive reports under acoustically similar conditions (hammering sounds on a construction site), as though the gist of the soundscape contributed to their plausible inclusion. In summary, although attentional set had a strong influence on the specific kinds of errors made, both results pointed to participants using a semantically congruent high-level schema to report the sounds they heard.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38177945What 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.