MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2329841127 · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31829bf6ec

Time Course and Cost of Misdirecting Auditory Spatial Attention in Younger and Older Adults

2013· article· en· W2329841127 sur OpenAlexafffund
Gurjit Singh, M. Kathleen Pichora‐Fuller, Bruce A. Schneider

Notice bibliographique

RevueEar and Hearing · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésSentenceCued speechActive listeningSpeech recognitionPsychologyAudiologyTask (project management)Word (group theory)Word identificationCognitive psychologyWord recognitionCommunicationComputer scienceLinguisticsNatural language processingReading (process)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In Brief Objectives: The effects of directing, switching, and misdirecting auditory spatial attention in a complex listening situation were investigated in 8 younger and 8 older listeners with normal-hearing sensitivity below 4 kHz. Design: In two companion experiments, a target sentence was presented from one spatial location and two competing sentences were presented simultaneously, one from each of two different locations. Pretrial, listeners were informed of the call-sign cue that identified which of the three sentences was the target and of the probability of the target sentence being presented from each of the three possible locations. Four different probability conditions varied in the likelihood of the target being presented at the left, center, and right locations. In Experiment 1, four timing conditions were tested: the original (unedited) sentences (which contained about 300 msec of filler speech between the call-sign cue and the onset of the target words), or modified (edited) sentences with silent pauses of 0, 150, or 300 msec replacing the filler speech. In Experiment 2, when the cued sentence was presented from an unlikely (side) listening location, for half of the trials the listener’s task was to report target words from the cued sentence (cue condition); for the remaining trials, the listener’s task was to report target words from the sentence presented from the opposite, unlikely (side) listening location (anticue condition). Results: In Experiment 1, for targets presented from the likely (center) location, word identification was better for the unedited than for modified sentences. For targets presented from unlikely (side) locations, word identification was better when there was more time between the call-sign cue and target words. All listeners benefited similarly from the availability of more compared with less time and the presentation of continuous compared with interrupted speech. In Experiment 2, the key finding was that age-related performance deficits were observed in conditions requiring anticue but not cue responses. Conclusions: The findings from Experiment 1 suggest that for both age groups, stream continuity mediates the process of allocating and maintaining auditory spatial attention when the target originates at an expected location, but that time is needed for the reallocation of auditory spatial attention when the target originates at an unexpected location. The findings from Experiment 2 suggest that when attention is momentarily misdirected, difficulties disengaging attention may help explain why older adults with good hearing report difficulty communicating in multi-talker listening situations. The effects of directing, switching, and misdirecting auditory spatial attention in a multi-talker listening situation were investigated in 8 younger and 8 older listeners with good hearing. In two experiments, a target sentence was presented from one location and two competing sentences were presented simultaneously, one from each of two different locations. In experiment 1, all listeners benefited similarly from having more compared with less time to switch attention one location to another. In experiment 2, age-related deficits were observed in conditions where rapid disengaging of attention was required, suggesting that older adults experience difficulty when attention is momentarily misdirected.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,830
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,180

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,252
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations15
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEar and HearingMême sujetHearing Loss and RehabilitationTravaux en français237 207