ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2026
Selective spatial attention to competing speakers in azimuth and depth: Evidence from real and virtual environments.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Selective auditory attention enables listeners to focus on a target speaker while suppressing concurrent sounds. To assess the ecological validity of virtual reality for studying spatial attention, the present study investigated cognitive and neural mechanisms in both real and virtual laboratory environments. Method: Participants completed a selective spatial attention task in both real and virtual environments under auditory-only and audio-visual conditions while EEG was recorded. Speech stimuli were presented from different locations in both azimuth and depth. In each trial, two simultaneous speech stimuli originated from different locations. Each stimulus included a target or distractor word (plus visual patterns in the audio-visual condition) followed by a numeral. Participants indicated whether the numeral at the target location was odd or even, ignoring the competing numeral. Results: Performance was slower and less accurate in the virtual environment, with auditory-only stimulation, and in depth-only trials, suggesting slower accumulation of sensory evidence, as confirmed by drift-diffusion modeling. Early sensory ERPs (P1, N1) were largely stable across conditions, whereas P2 amplitudes were modulated by environment, stimulation, and spatial configuration. Spatial configuration also strongly influenced amplitudes of the contingent negative variation, which were largest with azimuth-only stimuli. Importantly, these effects were consistent across environments and largely independent of visual cues and significant cross-environment correlations were observed for all behavioral and neurophysiological measures. Conclusion: These findings suggest that, despite additional perceptual and cognitive demands indicated by reduced performance and slower evidence accumulation, virtual reality captures key mechanisms of selective attention.
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.