Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42041896›Full record

ReviewBiology2026

Pitch at the Cocktail Party: A Comparative Approach to Studying Selective Attention.

Joel Ward, Veronica M Tarka, Artem Diuba, Kerry M M Walker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Joel WardDepartment of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PT, UK.
Veronica M TarkaDepartment of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0841-5916
Artem DiubaDepartment of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2885-4281
Kerry M M WalkerDepartment of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1043-5302

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M010929/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/X013103/1Medical Research Council UKRI449Royal College of Surgeons of England Surgical Research FellowshipUniversity of Oxford Clarendon Scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pitch is a powerful cue for segregating sound sources in complex acoustic scenes, yet the neural mechanisms through which it guides selective attention remain unclear. In this review, we consider behavioural and neurophysiological evidence from humans and animal models to examine how pitch supports selective listening in a two-stage process: bottom-up pitch-based feature binding, followed by top-down enhancement of an attended sound source. Behavioural studies demonstrate that even modest pitch differences substantially improve listeners' segregation of harmonic sounds, tone streams, and competing talkers. Human EEG, MEG, fMRI and ECoG studies show enhancement of target sound representations in auditory cortex during selective listening, but understanding this process at the level of individual neurons requires further study in animals that are trained in pitch-based selective listening tasks. Other key questions in this field include the relative roles of resolved and unresolved harmonic cues, the neural circuit mechanisms underlying target enhancement versus masker suppression, and how attention can target distributed cortical pitch representations. We argue that cross-species, naturalistic paradigms are essential for answering these questions and for addressing the listening difficulties associated with ageing and hearing loss.

Indexed as

attentionauditory cortexharmonicshearinglisteningpitch

Identifiers

PMID42041896
PMCPMC13113657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.