Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Selective attention to pitch amid conflicting auditory information: context-coding and filtering strategies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An auditory Eriksen-flanker task was used to study how conflicting information interferes with selective attention to task-relevant differences in pure-tone frequency. Across the observation intervals of the discrimination task, the relevant frequency differences between target tones were positive, but within an observation interval, they could appear to be small or negative relative to conflicting differences in flanker tones leading or trailing the target. Being correct required attending to the between-target and ignoring the target–flanker pitch relation (across and within observation-interval, respectively). The interference index was an elevation of conflict-laden frequency discrimination thresholds (FDTs), relative to no-conflict FDTs. When conflicting differences in frequency or level (but not in duration) trailed the relevant differences, interference (i.e., FDT elevation) was large and persistent, increased with the target–flanker time proximity, but decreased with extensive training. Interference occurs when the target–flanker pitch relation is more prominent than the one between targets, and the physical and/or perceptual effects of relevant and conflicting differences tend to cancel one another, as with the above conflicting differences. With untrained participants, the target–flanker pitch relation is most prominent in conditions fostering both the perceptual grouping of the target and flanker (e.g., close time proximity), and the recency and salience of the conflicting differences (e.g., trailing conflicting difference); conversely, by lessening such grouping and salience, prolonged training decreases or nullifies the interference. The interference observed herein does not arise because the relevant and the conflicting differences each prompt separate decisions or responses that are in mutual conflict; instead, it arises from the early-stage interaction between their perceptual effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A variety of rules can generate conflicting differences in the current paradigm; the present rule excludes conflicting differences in the Standard pair presented in the first observation interval. Displaying identical conflicting differences in all three observation-intervals would remove the within-trial conflicting differences, and result instead in a roving-standard task with between-trial stimulus variability. Presenting identical conflicting differences in both Comparisons precludes correlation between task-relevant and conflicting differences; for example, displaying conflicting differences consistently in the Comparison without the task-relevant difference would create correlation, and the “conflicting differences” would be useful to discriminate the relevant difference in target frequency. Trial-to-trial randomization of the Comparison conveying conflicting differences introduces an additional source of stimulus variability beyond the scope of this study.

  2. The Spearman-rank correlation between FDTs and amount of training was computed using individual FDT estimates rather than averages of 5–6 FDT estimates.

  3. Owing to the small participant samples and the large inter-individual differences, statistical significance employed non-parametric tests computed separately for each participant’s FDT data.

  4. In some cases, the final conflict-laden FDTs were not significantly higher than the no-conflict FDTs; however, further verification seemed justified because of the small participant samples, and the relatively low power of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

  5. The presentation order and time proximity (ISI) effects suggest that the trailing flanker (with or without conflicting differences) could interfere retroactively with the sensory memory of task-relevant differences in a manner resembling backward recognition/discrimination masking (BRM). It resembles the decline in pitch discrimination and recognition that occurs when a masker (without any conflicting difference) follows the target tone with ISIs shorter than 300 ms (e.g., Leshowitz & Cudahy, 1973; Massaro, 1975; Ronken, 1972; Turner, et al., 1994). To account for BRM, one hypothesis is that the masker interferes with the readout of information stored in the target sensory-memory trace (Massaro, 1975). However, it is unlikely that BRM alone could account for the FDT elevations induced by conflicting differences in the frequency or level of trailing flankers. First, the 40- or 80-ms targets used here are much longer than the 10–25-ms targets typically used in BRM tasks (e.g., Massaro, 1975). Well-trained participants show little or no BRM with targets longer than 20 ms (Sparks, 1976; Ronken, 1972; Leshowitz & Cudahy, 1973), and much less would occur in the present task. Second, prior to presenting conflicting differences in Experiment 1, training in the no-conflict target–flanker condition proceeded until FDTs approached closely those for no-conflict targets in isolation, i.e., training flattened the FDT elevations due merely to the presence of a flanker. With a trailing flanker, it might be difficult to read out or attend to the task-relevant information held in sensory memory, but the information itself is not lost; otherwise, training could not equate the two no-conflict FDTs. In addition to evincing after equating the no-conflict FDTs, the effects of conflicting differences in flanker frequency or level were much stronger and persistent than those due to the mere presence of a flanker. This occurred in spite of the fact that, in cumulative terms, participants had far more training when tested in conflict-laden than in no-conflict conditions. Moreover, conflicting information effects depend strongly on the conflicting-difference dimension: they are strong with frequency or level, but not with duration. Finally, in Experiment 2, a weak BRM effect could occur in the 60-ms ISI condition, but in addition to being significantly higher with than without conflicting frequency differences, the FDT elevations were significant also in the 350-ms ISI condition, in which no BRM would be expected (e.g., Massaro, 1975). Given the above, it is unlikely that sensory-memory interference could account for the effects of conflicting differences in the frequency or level of trailing flankers. However, a trailing flanker may produce effects resembling BRM, and in doing so facilitate conflicting-information interference. For example, the flanker could function as a distracter and make it difficult either to attend and access the information held in the target sensory memory trace or to ignore the conflicting information held in the flanker sensory memory trace, or both (e.g., Näätänen, 1988, 1992; Turner et al., 1994); this could account for presentation order effects.

References

  • Alain, C., & Woods, D. L. (1993). Distractor clustering enhances detection speed and accuracy during selective listening. Perception & Psychophysics, 54, 509–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alain, C., & Woods, D. L. (1994). Signal clustering modulates auditory cortical activity in humans. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 501–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. L. M., Morris, R. G., & Gick, M. L. (1990). Adult age differences in working memory. In G. Vallar & T. Shallice (Eds.), Neuropsychological impairments of short-term memory (pp. 69–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dishon-Berkovits, M., & Algom, D. (2000). The Stroop effect: it is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1437–1449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Divenyi, P. L., & Hirsh, I. J. (1975). The effect of blanking on the identification of temporal order in three-tone sequences. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 246–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, F. N. (1973). The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the study of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes. Memory & Cognition, 1, 106–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmerich, D. S., Ellermeier, W., & Butensky, B. (1989). A reexamination of the frequency discrimination of random-amplitude tones and a test of Henning’s modified energy-detector model. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 1653–1659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinoza-Varas, B. (1983). Integration of spectral and temporal cues in discrimination of nonspeech sounds: a psychoacoustic analysis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 74, 1687–1694.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Espinoza-Varas, B., & Jamieson, D. G. (1984). Integration of spectral and temporal cues separated in time and frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 732–738.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Espinoza-Varas, B., & Jang, H. (1998). Sequential interactions in discrimination of target frequency increments trailed by conflicting frequency increments: effects of target duration and target-conflicting frequency separation. In P. K. Kuhl & L. A. Crum (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th international congress on acoustics (pp. 2343–2344). Seattle: American Institute of Physics.

  • Espinoza-Varas, B., & Jang, H. (2005). Effects of conflicting level conflicting difference on frequency discrimination by young and older adults. Acoustical Science and Technology, 26, 394–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinoza-Varas, B., & Jang, H. (2006a). Aging impairs the ability to ignore conflicting information in frequency discrimination tasks. Experimental Aging Research, 32, 209–226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Espinoza-Varas, B., & Jang, H. (2006b). Backward-masked frequency discrimination by young and older adults: effects of masker level variability. Acta Acustica, 92, 457–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espinoza-Varas, B., & Watson, C. S. (1986). Temporal discrimination for single components of nonspeech auditory patterns. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, 1685–1694.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Espinoza-Varas, B., & Watson, C. S. (1994). Effects of decision criterion on response latencies of binary decisions. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 190–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foyle, D. C., & Watson, C. S. (1984). Stimulus-based versus performance based measurement of auditory backward recognition masking. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 515–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information & structure. Potomac: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W. R., & Felfoldy, G. L. (1970). Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giard, M., Fort, A., Mouchetant-Rostaing, Y., & Pernier, J. (2000). Neurophysiological mechanisms of auditory selective attention. Frontiers in Bioscience, 5, 84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, M. O., & Glaser, W. R. (1982). Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 875–894.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Graw, J. W., & Kemler-Nelson, D. G. (1988). The distinction between integral and separable dimensions: evidence for the integrality of pitch and loudness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 347–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, E. J., & Barber, P. J. (1981). An auditory Stroop effect with judgments of speaker gender. Perception and Psychophysics, 30, 459–466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green, E. J., & Barber, P. J. (1983). Interference effects in an auditory Stroop task: congruence and correspondence. Acta Psychologica, 53, 183–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamers, J. F., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Bilingual interdependencies in auditory perception. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 303–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henning, G. B. (1970). Effects of duration on frequency and amplitude discrimination. In R. Plomp & G. F. Smoorenburg (Eds.), Frequency analysis and periodicity detection in hearing (pp. 350–359). Leiden: A.W. Sijtoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horváth, J., Czigler, I., Winkler, I., & Teder-Sälejärvi, W. A. (2007). The temporal window of integration in elderly and young adults. Neurobiology of Aging, 28, 964–975.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods in psychology. Belmont: Duxbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huettel, S. A., & Lockhead, G. R. (1999). Range effects of an irrelevant dimension on classification. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1624–1645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, T., Schröger, E., Winkler, I., & Horváth, J. (2005). Familiarity affects the processing of task-irrelevant auditory deviance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1704–1713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. R., Kidd, G., & Wetzel, R. (1981). Evidence for rhythmic attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1059–1073.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lamers, M. J. M., & Roelofs, A. (2007). Role of Gestalt grouping in selective attention: Evidence from the Stroop task. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1305–1314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leboe, L. C., & Mondor, T. A. (2007). Item-specific congruency effects in nonverbal auditory Stroop. Psychological Research, 71, 568–575.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leshowitz, B., & Cudahy, E. (1973). Frequency discrimination in the presence of another tone. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 882–887.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 467–477.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523–553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, C., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Influence of irrelevant information on human performance: effects of S-R association strength and relative timing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 95–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, C. M., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Training and Stroop-like interference: evidence for a continuum of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 304–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massaro, D. W. (1975). Backward recognition masking. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 58, 1059–1065.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Melara, R. D., & Marks, L. E. (1990a). Interaction among auditory dimensions: timbre, pitch, and loudness. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melara, R. D., & Marks, L. E. (1990b). Perceptual primacy of dimensions: support for a model of dimensional interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 398–414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Melara, R. D., Marks, L. E., & Lesko, K. E. (1992). Optional processes in similarity judgments. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 123–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melara, R. D., & Mounts, J. R. W. (1993). Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice. Memory & Cognition, 21, 627–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melara, R. D., & Mounts, J. R. W. (1994). Contextual influences on interactive processing: effects of discriminability, quantity, and uncertainty. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melara, R. D., Rao, A., & Tong, Y. (2002). The duality of selection: excitatory and inhibitory processes in auditory selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 279–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, D., & Schröger, E. (2007). Temporal grouping affects the automatic processing of deviant sounds. Biological Psychology, 74, 358–364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Näätänen, R. (1988). Implications or ERP data for psychological theories of attention. Biological Psychology, 26, 117–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Näätänen, R. (1992). Attention and brain function. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Näätänen, R., Schröger, E., Karakas, S., Tervaniemi, M., & Paavilainen, P. (1993). Development of a memory trace for a complex sound in the human brain. Neuroreport, 4, 503–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rakowski, A., & Hirsh, I. J. (1980). Poststimulatory pitch shifts for pure tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 68, 467–474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Riess, M. J., Moynihan, H., MacKenzie, N., & Puente, J. (2002). Temporal aspects of stimulus driven attending in dynamic arrays. Psychological Science, 13, 313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinne, T., Särkkä, A., Degerman, A., Schröger, E., & Alho, K. (2006). Two separate mechanisms underlie auditory change detection and involuntary control of attention. Brain Research, 1077, 135–143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roffler, S. K., & Butler, R. A. (1967). Localization of tonal stimuli in the vertical plane. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 43, 1260–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronken, D. A. (1972). Changes in frequency discrimination caused by leading and trailing tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 1947–1950.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rossing, T. D., & Houtsma, A. J. M. (1986). Effects of signal envelope on the pitch of short sinusoidal tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79, 1926–1933.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, L. D., & Astheimer, L. B. (2008). Temporally selective attention modulates early perceptual processing: event-related potential evidence. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 732–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. R., & Besner, D. (2008). The Stroop effect: why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 514–523.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schröger, E., & Wolff, C. (1998). Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of task-conflicting sound change: a new distraction paradigm. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 71–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2008). He said, she said: episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1117–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, D. W. (1976). Temporal recognition masking—or interference? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60, 1347–1353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stelmachowicz, P. G., & Seewald, R. C. (1977). Threshold and suprathreshold temporal integration function in normal and cochlear-impaired subjects. Audiology, 16, 94–101.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, C. W., Horwitz, A. R., & Souza, P. E. (1994). Forward- and backward-masked intensity discrimination measured using forced-choice and adjustment procedures. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2121–2126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B. N., & Ehrenstein, A. (2000). Pitch and pitch change interact in auditory displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 15–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yabe, H., Tervaniemi, M., Sinkkonen, J., Huotilainen, M., Ilmoniemi, R. J., & Näätänen, R. (1998). The temporal window of integration of auditory information in the human brain. Psychophysiology, 35, 615–619.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., & Kornblum, S. (1998). The effects of stimulus–response mapping and irrelevant stimulus–response and stimulus–stimulus overlap in four-choice Stroop tasks with single-carrier stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 3–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zwicker, E., & Fastl, E. (1990). Psychoacoustics: facts & models. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research funded by a contract from the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology (Project Number HR4-064), and by a Presbyterian Health Foundation grant awarded to the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. We are indebted to Dr. Thomas Campbell, Dr. Erich Schröger, and Dr. Bernhard Hommel for their expert editorial advice, which helped us clarify concepts and improve earlier versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 1200 N. Stonewall Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK, 73117, USA

    Blas Espinoza-Varas

  2. Division of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Hallym University, Chuncheon, South Korea

    Hyunsook Jang

Authors
  1. Blas Espinoza-Varas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hyunsook Jang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Blas Espinoza-Varas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Espinoza-Varas, B., Jang, H. Selective attention to pitch amid conflicting auditory information: context-coding and filtering strategies. Psychological Research 75, 159–178 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0295-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0295-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation