Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 81, Issue 3, pp 727–737 | Cite as

Cognitive control in the cocktail party: Preparing selective attention to dichotically presented voices supports distractor suppression

  • Sophie NoldenEmail author
  • Camellia N. Ibrahim
  • Iring Koch


The goal of the present study was to investigate preparatory mechanisms of auditory selective attention. In two experiments, participants performed a classification task on one of two dichotically presented spoken number words, one spoken by a female, one spoken by a male. A cue indicated which gender participants had to attend to in the upcoming trial, so that attention switches and repetitions occurred randomly. The cue-target interval (CTI) was either 400 ms or 1,200 ms. Stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between target and distractor word varied; hence, the distractor could be presented before or after the target. In two experiments, we found robust performance costs of attention switches. Like in previous studies using versions of this paradigm, these switch costs were not significantly reduced by prolonged CTI, even though we found substantial general cue-based preparation effects. The most important finding refers to the influence of SOA, showing that the general preparation effect was greater in the condition with the distractor presented first than in the condition with the target presented first. Thus, increased time to prepare for the attention focus of the upcoming trials seems to benefit distractor suppression more than target enhancement. This occurred in switch trials and repetition trials alike, suggesting that it is a general feature of auditory attention.


Auditory selective attention Cognitive control Task-switching Preparation Dichotic listening 



We thank our participants for their participation and our reviewers. Camellia N. Ibrahim is now at Heinrich-Heine-University Düesseldorf. This study was funded by the Excellence Initiative of the German federal and state governments by a grant awarded to Sophie Nolden.


  1. Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Oxford: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bronkhorst, A. W. (2015). The cocktail-party problem revisited: Early processing and selection of multi-talker speech. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 77, 1465-1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chao, H. F. (2010). Top-down attentional control for distractor locations: The benefit of precuing distractor locations on target localization and discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 303-3016.Google Scholar
  5. Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975-979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject design: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darwin, C. J., & Carlyon, R. P. (1995). Auditory grouping. In B. C. J. Moore (Ed.), Hearing (pp. 387-424). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193-222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 70, 80-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holmes, E., Kitterick, P. T., & Summerfield, A. Q. (2018). Cueing listeners to attend to a target talker progressively improves word report as the duration of the cue-target interval lengthens to 2000 ms. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 80, 1520-1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hugdahl, K. (2011). Fifty years of dichotic listening research- Still going and going and… Brain and Cognition [Dichotic Listenting Anniversary Special Issue], 76, 211-213.Google Scholar
  12. Jost, K., De Baene, W., Koch, I., & Brass, M. (2013). A review of the role of cue processing in task switching. Zeitschrift fuer Psychologie, 221, 5-14.Google Scholar
  13. Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching - A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849-874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of task inhibition in task switching - a review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17, 1-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koch, I., & Lawo, V. (2014). Exploring temporal dissipation of attention settings in auditory attention. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 76, 73-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koch, I., Lawo, V., Fels, J., & Vorländer, M. (2011). Switching in the cocktail party: Exploring intentional control of auditory selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1140-1147.Google Scholar
  17. Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking – An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 557-583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lachter, J., Forster, K. I., & Ruthruff, E. (2004). Forty-five years after Broadbent (1958): Still no identification without attention. Psychological Review, 111, 880-913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawo, V., Fels, J., Oberem, J., & Koch, I. (2014). Intentional attention switching in dichotic listening: Exploring the efficiency of nonspatial and spatial selection. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 2010-2024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawo, V., & Koch, I. (2014). Dissociable effects of auditory attention switching and stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research [Special Issue Auditory Attention], 78, 379-386.Google Scholar
  21. Lawo, V. & Koch, I. (2015). Attention and action: The role of response mappings in auditory attention switching. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.Google Scholar
  23. Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meiran, N., Kessler, Y., & Adi-Japha, E. (2008). Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): A theoretical framework for task switching. Psychological Research, 72, 473–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moher, J., & Egeth, H. E. (2012). The ignoring paradox: cueing distractor features leads first to selection, then to inhibition of to-be-ignored-items. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74, 1590-1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morey, R. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: a correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nolden, S., & Koch, I. (2017). Cognitive control of auditory selective attention to long or short melodic patterns. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 79, 1132-1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Noonan, M. P., Adamian, N., Pike, A., Printzlau, F., Crittenden, B. M., & Stokes, M. G. (2016). Distinct mechanisms for distractor suppression and target facilitation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 1797-1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rivenez, M., Guillaume, A., Bourgeon, L., & Darwin, C. J. (2008). Effect of voice characteristics on the attended and unattended processing of two concurrent messages. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 967-993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruff, C. C., & Driver, J. (2006) Attentional preparation for a lateralized visual distractor: behavioral and fMRI evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neurosciene, 18, 522-538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samson, F., & Johnsrude I. S. (2016). Effects of a consistent target or masker voice on target speech intelligibility in two- and three-talker mixtures. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139, 1037-1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schneider, B. A., Li, L., & Daneman, M. (2007). How competing speech interferes with speech comprehension in everyday listening situations. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 559-572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seibold, J. C., Nolden, S., Oberem, J., Fels, J., & Koch, I. (2018). Intentional preparation of auditory attention-switches: Explicit cueing and sequential switch-predictability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 1382-1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. (2008). Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 182-186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Treisman, A. (1960). Contextual cues in selective listening. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 242-248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Treisman, A. (1969). Strategies and models of selective attention. Psychological Review, 76, 282-299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sophie Nolden
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Camellia N. Ibrahim
    • 2
  • Iring Koch
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGoethe-University Frankfurt am MainFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Institute of PsychologyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations