Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Auditory attention and the representation of spatial information

  • Gillian Rhodes
Article

Abstract

Three experiments were carried out to investigate the spatial properties of auditory attention. If auditory spatial information is represented analogically, then shifts of auditory attention should be constrained by the spatial structure of the representation. In particular, the time taken to shift auditory attention should increase with the distance moved. As predicted, the time for attention shifts was a linearly increasing function of the angular distance moved, for distances up to 90°. Moreover, the rate at which attention was shifted appeared to depend on the capacity available, which in turn depended on task difficulty (Experiment 1 vs. Experiment 2) and memory load (Experiment 3). Explanations based on general expectancies or response priming were ruled out. The results suggest that auditory spatial information, like visual spatial information, is represented analogically, and that this structure constrains the way that attention can be moved within the representation.

References

  1. Bregman, A S (1978). The formation of auditory streams. In J Requin (Ed),Attention and performance VII Hillsdale, NJ ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  2. Bregman, A. S (1981) Asking the what-for question in auditory perception In M. Kubovy & J R. Pornerantz (Eds),Perceptual organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Bregman, A S, &Campbell, J (1971) Primary auditory stream segregation and perception of order in rapid.sequences of tonesJournal of Experimental Psychology,89, 244–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bregman, A. S., &Rudnicky, A I (1975). Auditory stream segregation Stream or streams?Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance,1, 263–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briggs, R M, &Perroti, D. R. (1972) Auditory apparent movement under dichotic listening conditions.Journal of Experimental Psychology,92, 83–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter, P A, &Eisenberg, P (1978). Mental rotation and frame of reference in blind and sighted individualsPerception & Psychophysics,23, 117–124Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, L A., &Shepard, R N (1973a) Chronometrie studies of the rotation of mental images. In Wr. G Chase (Ed),Visual information processing New York Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, L- A. &Shepard, R N (1973b) The time required to prepare for a rotated stimulusMemory & Cognition,1, 246–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Downing, C. J., &Pinker, S. (1985). The spatial structure of visual attention In M I Posner, & O. S M. Mann (Eds),Attention and performance XI. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Drager, U. C., &Hijbel, D. H. (1975). Responses to visual stimulation and relationship between visual, auditory and somatosensory inputs in mouse superior colliculusJournal of Neurophysiology,38, 690–713.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Knudsen, E. I. (1982) Auditory and visual maps of space in the optic tectum of the owl.The Journal of Neuroscience,2, 1177–1194.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Knudsen, E I. (1984). Synthesis of a neural map of auditory space in the owl. In G. M. Edelman, W. M. Cowan, & W. E. Gall (Eds.),Dynamic aspects of neocortical function. New York WileyGoogle Scholar
  13. Korte, A. (1915). Kinematoscopische Untersuchungen.Zeitschrifi für Psychologie der Sinnesorgane,72, 193–296Google Scholar
  14. Kubovy, M. (1981). Concurrent-pitch segregation and the theory of indispensable attributes. In M Kubovy & J R. Pornerantz (Eds),Perceptual organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Lansman, M., Farr, S., &Hunt, E (1984). Expectancy and dual task interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance,10, 195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marcel, T., &Forrin, B. (1974). Naming latency and the repetition of stimulus categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology,103, 450–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marmor, G. S, &Zaback, L. A (1976). Mental rotation by the blind: Does mental rotation depend on visual imagery?Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance,2, 515–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marr, D. (1982) Vision San Francisco: W H. Freeman. Mills, A W. (1958) On the minimum audible angle.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,30, 237–246.Google Scholar
  19. Mills, A W (1972). Auditory localization. In J V. Tobias (Ed),Foundations of modern auditory theory (Vol 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. O’leary, A, &Rhodes, G. (1984). Cross-modal effects on visual and auditory object perceptionPerception & Psychophysics,35, 565–569Google Scholar
  21. Palmer, A. R., &King, A J. (1982) The representation of auditory space in the mammalian superior colliculus.Nature,299, 248–249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Posner, M. I. (1978).Chronometrie explorations of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Posner, M. I., Snyder, C R. R., &Davidson, B J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals.Journal of Experimental Psychology. General,109, 160–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shepard, R. N. (1981) Psychophysical complementarity. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pornerantz (Eds),Perceptual organization. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Shepard, R N., &Cooper, L. A. (1982).Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Shepard, R. N, &Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of threedimensional objects.Science,171, 701–703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Shepard, R. N, &Zare, S L (1983). Path-guided apparent motionScience,220, 632–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Shulman, G L., Remington, R. W., &McLean, J P. (1979). Moving attention through visual space.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance,5, 522–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stevens, S. S, &Newman, E B. (1936). The localization of actual sources of sound.American Journal of Psychology,48, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tsai, Y. (1983). Movements of attention across the visual field.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance,9, 523–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gillian Rhodes
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations