ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Voice and linguistic features support early attentional filtering of irrelevant stimuli.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In cocktail party-type environments, listeners must segregate simultaneous acoustic sources and select one for processing. Behavioral studies have established that both low-level voice differences (e.g., pitch) and high-level linguistic differences (e.g., word content) aid these processes. Electroencephalography (EEG) studies have demonstrated that the brain filters voices based on low-level features early in sensory processing, but it is unclear whether linguistic differences also support early filtering. In this EEG study, listeners attended to a lateralized auditory stream of target syllables while ignoring distractor stimuli from the opposite hemifield. In contrast to previous auditory attention studies, target stimuli were always attended and statistically identical across conditions; instead, we manipulated the distractors. Specifically, we manipulated whether targets and distractors were spoken in the same voice or different voices, as well as whether they were composed of the same or different linguistic content. Critically, distractors were temporally offset from targets, enabling an investigation of whether acoustically matched, always attended target stimuli are differentially encoded as a function of surrounding context. Differences in either voice or linguistic features supported target recall: Recall was poor only when both streams were in the same voice and had similar linguistic content. However, voice and linguistic features had independent, additive effects on neural processing. Specifically, target dissimilarity in acoustics and linguistic content both contributed to more robust, larger-magnitude target-evoked EEG responses. Overall, results demonstrate that both linguistic dissimilarity and low-level acoustic dissimilarity improve early attentional filtering of distractors in multi-source acoustic scenes.
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.