Abstract
Speech perception in noise is a cognitively demanding process that challenges not only the auditory sensory system, but also cognitive networks involved in attention. The predictive coding theory has been influential in characterizing the influence of prior context on processing incoming auditory stimuli, with comparatively less research dedicated to “postdictive” processes and subsequent context effects on speech perception. Effects of subsequent semantic context were evaluated while manipulating the relationship of three target words presented in noise and the temporal position of targets compared to the subsequent contextual cue, demonstrating that subsequent context benefits were present regardless of whether the targets were related to each other and did not depend on the position of the target. However, participants instructed to focus on the relation between target and cue performed worse than those who did not receive this instruction, suggesting a disruption of a natural process of continuous speech recognition. We discuss these findings in relation to lexical commitment and stimulus-driven attention to short-term memory as mechanisms of subsequent context integration.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code availability
Code used to analyse the data from the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Alain, C., Cusimano, M., Garami, L., Backer, K. C., Habelt, B., Chan, V., & Hasher, L. (2018). Age-related differences in orienting attention to sound object representations. Neurobiology of Aging, 66, 1–11.
Backer, K. C., & Alain, C. (2012). Orienting attention to sound object representations attenuates change deafness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(6), 1554–1566.
Backer, K. C., & Alain, C. (2014). Attention to memory: Orienting attention to sound object representations. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 78(3), 439–452.
Backer, K. C., Binns, M., & Alain, C. (2015). Neural dynamics underlying attentional orienting to auditory representations in short-term memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(3), 1307–1318.
Bard, E. G., Shillcock, R. C., & Altmann, G. T. (1988). The recognition of words after their acoustic offsets in spontaneous speech: Effects of subsequent context. Perception & Psychophysics, 44(5), 395–408.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823
Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. MIT Press.
Chan, T. V., & Alain, C. (2019). Listening back in time: Does attention to memory facilitate word-in-noise identification? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(1), 253–269.
Connine, C. M., Blasko, D. G., & Hall, M. (1991). Effects of subsequent sentence context in auditory word recognition: Temporal and linguistic constraints. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(2), 234–250.
Davelaar, E. J., Haarmann, H. J., Goshen-Gottstein, Y., & Usher, M. (2006). Semantic similarity dissociates short- from long-term recency effects: Testing a neurocomputational model of list memory. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 323–334.
Davis, M. H., Ford, M. A., Kherif, F., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2011). Does semantic context benefit speech understanding through “top–down” processes? Evidence from time-resolved sparse fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(12), 3914–3932.
Falissard, B. (2012). psy: Various procedures used in psychometry. R package version 1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psy
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
Frankish, C. (2008). Precategorical acoustic storage and the perception of speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 815–836.
Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138.
Füllgrabe, C., & Rosen, S. (2016). On the (un)importance of working memory in speech-in-noise processing for listeners with normal hearing thresholds. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1268.
Gilbert, R. A., Davis, M. H., Gaskell, M. G., & Rodd, J. M. (2019). The relationship between sentence comprehension and lexical-semantic retuning. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qvaud
Golestani, N., Hervais-Adelman, A., Obleser, J., & Scott, S. K. (2013). Semantic versus perceptual interactions in neural processing of speech-in-noise. NeuroImage, 79, 52–61.
Gordon-Salant, S., & Cole, S. S. (2016). Effects of age and working memory capacity on speech recognition performance in noise among listeners with normal hearing. Ear and Hearing, 37(5), 593–602.
Griffin, I. C., & Nobre, A. C. (2003). Orienting attention to locations in internal representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(8), 1176–1194.
Guediche, S., Reilly, M., Santiago, C., Laurent, P., & Blumstein, S. E. (2016). An fMRI study investigating effects of conceptually related sentences on the perception of degraded speech. Cortex, 79, 57–74.
Guediche, S., Salvata, C., & Blumstein, S. E. (2013). Temporal cortex reflects effects of sentence context on phonetic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(5), 706–718.
Gwilliams, L., Linzen, T., Poeppel, D., & Marantz, A. (2018). In spoken word recognition, the future predicts the past. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(35), 7585–7599.
Hervais-Adelman, A., Davis, M. H., Johnsrude, I. S., & Carlyon, R. P. (2008). Perceptual learning of noise vocoded words: Effects of feedback and lexicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(2), 460–474.
Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61(5), 1337–1351.
Klatt, L.-I., Getzmann, S., Wascher, E., & Schneider, D. (2018). Searching for auditory targets in external space and in working memory: Electrophysiological mechanisms underlying perceptual and retroactive spatial attention. Behavioural Brain Research, 353, 98–107.
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.
Lenth, R., Singmann, H., & Love, J. (2018). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.5.2. https://cran.r-project.org/package=emmeans
Lim, S.-J., Wöstmann, M., & Obleser, J. (2015). Selective attention to auditory memory neurally enhances perceptual precision. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(49), 16094–16104.
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 203–208.
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10(1), 29–63.
McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86.
McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2009). Within-category VOT affects recovery from “lexical” garden paths: Evidence against phoneme-level inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 65–91.
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227.
Nelson, D., McEvoy, C., & Schreiber, T. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402–407.
Obleser, J., & Kotz, S. A. (2010). Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. Cerebral Cortex, 20(3), 633–640.
Obleser, J., & Kotz, S. A. (2011). Multiple brain signatures of integration in the comprehension of degraded speech. NeuroImage, 55(2), 713–723.
Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Alain, C., & Schneider, B. A. (2017). Older adults at the cocktail party in the auditory system at the cocktail party (pp. 227–259). Springer.
Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. A., & Daneman, M. (1995). How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(1), 593–608.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Rönnberg, J., Holmer, E., & Rudner, M. (2019). Cognitive hearing science and ease of language understanding. International Journal of Audiology, 58(5), 247–261.
Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A., Sörqvist, P., Danielsson, H., Lyxell, B., Dahlström, Ö., Signoret, C., Stenfelt, S., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Rudner, M. (2013). The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7, 31.
Scherer, D., & Wentura, D. (2018). Combining the post-cue task and the perceptual identification task to assess parallel activation and mutual facilitation of related primes and targets. Experimental Psychology, 65(2), 84–97.
Sheldon, S., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Schneider, B. A. (2008). Priming and sentence context support listening to noise-vocoded speech by younger and older adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(1), 489–499.
Sohoglu, E., Peelle, J. E., Carlyon, R. P., & Davis, M. H. (2012). Predictive top-down integration of prior knowledge during speech perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(25), 8443–8453.
Sumby, W. H., & Pollack, I. (1954). Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 26(2), 212–215.
Szostak, C. M., & Pitt, M. A. (2013). The prolonged influence of subsequent context on spoken word recognition. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(7), 1533–1546.
Voeten, C. C. (2019). buildmer: Stepwise elimination and term reordering for mixed-effects regression. R package version 1.2.1. https://cran.r-project.org/package=buildmer
Wallis, G., Stokes, M., Cousijn, H., Woolrich, M., & Nobre, A. C. (2015). Frontoparietal and cingulo-opercular networks play dissociable roles in control of working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(10), 2019–2034.
Warren, R. M. (1970). Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science, 167(3917), 392–393.
Warren, R. M., & Sherman, G. L. (1974). Phonemic restorations based on subsequent context. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 150–156.
Wingfield, A., Alexander, A. H., & Cavigelli, S. (1994). Does memory constrain utilization of top-down information in spoken word recognition? Evidence from normal aging. Language and Speech, 37(3), 221–235.
Zekveld, A. A., Rudner, M., Johnsrude, I. S., Festen, J. M., Van Beek, J. H., & Rönnberg, J. (2011). The influence of semantically related and unrelated text cues on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. Ear and Hearing, 32(6), e16–e25.
Zekveld, A. A., Rudner, M., Johnsrude, I. S., Heslenfeld, D. J., & Rönnberg, J. (2012). Behavioral and fMRI evidence that cognitive ability modulates the effect of semantic context on speech intelligibility. Brain and Language, 122(2), 103–113.
Zimmermann, J. F., Moscovitch, M., & Alain, C. (2016). Attending to auditory memory. Brain Research, 1640, 208–221.
Funding
This research was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Grant (RGPIN-2016-05523) awarded to CA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
TMVC: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing, Visualization, Project administration; BRB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, writing—review and editing; CA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing—review and editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
This study was approved by the Research Ethics Board at Baycrest Health Sciences and was performed in accordance with the standards in the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chan, T.M.V., Buchsbaum, B.R. & Alain, C. Effects of temporal order and intentionality on reflective attention to words in noise. Psychological Research 86, 544–557 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01494-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01494-6