TY - JOUR
T1 - Disentangling the effects of spatial cues on selection and formation of auditory objects
AU - Ihlefeld, Antje
AU - Shinn-Cunningham, Barbara
N1 - Funding Information:
Grants from the Office of Naval Research and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research to B.S.-C. supported this work. Jyrki Ahveninen, Virginia Best, Robert Carlyon, Steven Colburn, Frederick Gallun, Gerald Kidd, Nicole Marrone, Christine Mason, Richard Freyman, and three anonymous reviewers gave helpful feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. 1
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - When competing sources come from different directions, a desired target is easier to hear than when the sources are co-located. How much of this improvement is the result of spatial attention rather than improved perceptual segregation of the competing sources is not well understood. Here, listeners' attention was directed to spatial or nonspatial cues when they listened for a target masked by a competing message. A preceding cue signaled the target timbre, location, or both timbre and location. Spatial separation improved performance when the cue indicated the target location, or both the location and timbre, but not when the cue only indicated the target timbre. However, response errors were influenced by spatial configuration in all conditions. Both attention and streaming contributed to spatial effects when listeners actively attended to location. In contrast, when attention was directed to a nonspatial cue, spatial separation primarily appeared to improve the streaming of auditory objects across time. Thus, when attention is focused on location, spatial separation appears to improve both object selection and object formation; when attention is directed to nonspatial cues, separation affects object formation. These results highlight the need to distinguish between these separate mechanisms when considering how observers cope with complex auditory scenes.
AB - When competing sources come from different directions, a desired target is easier to hear than when the sources are co-located. How much of this improvement is the result of spatial attention rather than improved perceptual segregation of the competing sources is not well understood. Here, listeners' attention was directed to spatial or nonspatial cues when they listened for a target masked by a competing message. A preceding cue signaled the target timbre, location, or both timbre and location. Spatial separation improved performance when the cue indicated the target location, or both the location and timbre, but not when the cue only indicated the target timbre. However, response errors were influenced by spatial configuration in all conditions. Both attention and streaming contributed to spatial effects when listeners actively attended to location. In contrast, when attention was directed to a nonspatial cue, spatial separation primarily appeared to improve the streaming of auditory objects across time. Thus, when attention is focused on location, spatial separation appears to improve both object selection and object formation; when attention is directed to nonspatial cues, separation affects object formation. These results highlight the need to distinguish between these separate mechanisms when considering how observers cope with complex auditory scenes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=53949086133&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=53949086133&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1121/1.2973185
DO - 10.1121/1.2973185
M3 - Article
C2 - 19062861
AN - SCOPUS:53949086133
SN - 0001-4966
VL - 124
SP - 2224
EP - 2235
JO - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
JF - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
IS - 4
ER -