Extrinsic cognitive load impairs low-level speech perception

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Sven L. Mattys (1)
  Katharine Barden (2)
  Arthur G. Samuel (3) (4)
  
• 关键词：Speech perception ; Divided attention ; Cognitive load ; Phoneme restoration ; Lexical access
• 刊名：Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：June 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：21
• 期：3
• 页码：748-754
• 全文大小：<len>
• 参考文献：1. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. / Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255-78. lass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  2. Brungart, D., Iyer, N., Thompson, E. R., Simpson, B. D., Gordon-Salant, S., Schurman, J., . . . Grant, K. (2013). Interactions between listening effort and masker type on the energetic and informational masking of speech stimuli. In / Proceedings of meetings on acoustics (Vol. 19, p. 060146). Melville, NY: Acoustical Society of America. doi:lass="a-plus-plus non-url-ref">10.1121/1.4800033
  3. Casini, L., Burle, B., & Nguyen, N. (2009). Speech perception engages a general timer: Evidence from a divided attention word identification task. / Cognition, 112, 318-22. lass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.04.005" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  4. Francis, A. L. (2010). Improved segregation of simultaneous talkers differentially affects perceptual and cognitive capacity demands for recognizing speech in competing speech. / Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 501-16. doi:lass="a-plus-plus non-url-ref">10.3758/APP.72.2.501 lass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.2.501" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  5. Ganong, W. F. (1980). Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 110-25.
  6. Gordon, P. C., Eberhardt, J. L., & Rueckl, J. G. (1993). Attentional modulation of the phonetic significance of acoustic cues. / Cognitive Psychology, 25, 1-2. lass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1001" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  7. Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. K. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review. / Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 953-78. lass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.705006" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  8. Mattys, S. L., & Scharenborg, O. (2013). Phoneme categorization and discrimination in younger and older adults: A comparative analysis of perceptual, lexical, and attentional factors. / Psychology and Aging, in press.
  9. Mattys, S. L., & Wiget, L. (2011). Effects of cognitive load on speech recognition. / Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 145-60. lass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.004" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  10. Mirman, D., McClelland, J. L., Holt, L. L., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Effects of attention on the strength of lexical influences on speech perception: Behavioral experiments and computational mechanisms. / Cognitive Science, 32, 398-17. lass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03640210701864063" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  11. Rinne, T., Balk, M. H., Koistinen, S., Autti, T., Alho, K., & Sams, M. (2008). Auditory selective attention modulates activation of human inferior colliculus. / Journal of Neurophysiology, 100, 3323-327. lass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.90607.2008" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  12. Rinne, T., Stecker, G. C., Kang, X., Yund, E. W., Herron, T. J., & Woods, D. L. (2007). Attention modulates sound processing in human auditory cortex but not the inferior colliculus. / Neuroreport, 18, 1311-314. lass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e32826fb3bb" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  13. Samuel, A. G. (1981). Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 474-94. lass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.110.4.474" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  14. Samuel, A. G. (1996). Does lexical information influence the perceptual restoration of phonemes? / Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 28-1. lass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.1.28" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  15. Warren, R. M. (1970). Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. / Science, 167, 392-93. lass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.167.3917.392" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Sven L. Mattys (1)
  Katharine Barden (2)
  Arthur G. Samuel (3) (4)
  
  1. Department of Psychology, University of York, York, UK
  2. School of Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  3. Psychology Department, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
  4. Basque Center on Cognition Brain and Language, Donostia, Spain and Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain
  
• ISSN：1531-5320

文摘

Recent research has suggested that the extrinsic cognitive load generated by performing a nonlinguistic visual task while perceiving speech increases listeners-reliance on lexical knowledge and decreases their capacity to perceive phonetic detail. In the present study, we asked whether this effect is accounted for better at a lexical or a sublexical level. The former would imply that cognitive load directly affects lexical activation but not perceptual sensitivity; the latter would imply that increased lexical reliance under cognitive load is only a secondary consequence of imprecise or incomplete phonetic encoding. Using the phoneme restoration paradigm, we showed that perceptual sensitivity decreases (i.e., phoneme restoration increases) almost linearly with the effort involved in the concurrent visual task. However, cognitive load had only a minimal effect on the contribution of lexical information to phoneme restoration. We concluded that the locus of extrinsic cognitive load on the speech system is perceptual rather than lexical. Mechanisms by which cognitive load increases tolerance to acoustic imprecision and broadens phonemic categories were discussed.