Attentional and perceptual sources of the auditory attentional blink

Temporal deployment of attention in musicians: Evidence from an attentional blink paradigm

The generalization of music training to unrelated nonmusical domains is well established and may reflect musicians' superior ability to regulate attention. We investigated the temporal deployment of attention in musicians and nonmusicians using scalp-recording of event-related potentials in an attentional blink (AB) paradigm. Participants listened to rapid sequences of stimuli and identified target and probe sounds. The AB was defined as a probe identification deficit when the probe closely follows the target. The sequence of stimuli was preceded by a neutral or informative cue about the probe position within the sequence. Musicians outperformed nonmusicians in identifying the target and probe. In both groups, cueing improved target and probe identification and reduced the AB. The informative cue elicited a sustained potential, which was more prominent in musicians than nonmusicians over left temporal areas and yielded a larger N1 amplitude elicited by the target. The N1 was larger in musicians than nonmusicians, and its amplitude over the left frontocentral cortex of musicians correlated with accuracy. Together, these results reveal musicians' superior ability to regulate attention, allowing them to prepare for incoming stimuli, thereby improving sound object identification. This capacity to manage attentional resources to optimize task performance may generalize to nonmusical activities.

ERP signatures of auditory awareness in cross-modal distractor-induced deafness

Previous research showed that dual-task processes such as the attentional blink are not always transferable from unimodal to cross-modal settings. This study investigated whether such a transfer can be stated for a distractor-induced impairment of target detection established in vision (distractor-induced blindness, DIB) and recently observed in the auditory modality (distractor-induced deafness, DID). A cross-modal DID effect was confirmed: The detection of an auditory target indicated by a visual cue was impaired if multiple auditory distractors preceded the target. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were used to identify psychophysiological correlates of target detection. A frontal negativity about 200 ms succeeded by a sustained, widespread negativity was associated with auditory target awareness. In contrast to unimodal findings, P3 amplitude was not enhanced for hits. The results support the notion that early frontal attentional processes are linked to auditory awareness, whereas the P3 does not seem to be a reliable indicator of target access.

Distractor-induced deafness: The effect of multiple auditory distractors on conscious target processing

Conscious access to a target stimulus embedded in a rapid serial visual presentation can be impaired by the preceding presentation of multiple task-irrelevant distractors. While this phenomenon - labeled distractor-induced blindness (DIB) - is established in vision, it is unknown whether a similar effect can be observed in the auditory modality. Considering the differences in the processing of visual and auditory stimuli, modality-specific effects in the inhibitory mechanisms triggered by distractors can be expected. First, we aimed to find evidence for a distractor-induced deafness (DID) for auditory targets in a behavioral experiment. The target was defined by a transient increase in amplitude in a continuous sinusoidal tone, which was to be detected if accompanied or preceded by a deviant tone (cue). Both events were embedded in separate streams in a binaural rapid serial auditory presentation. Distractors preceded the cue and shared the target's features. As previously observed for DIB, a failure to detect the auditory target critically relied on the presentation of multiple distractor episodes. This DID effect was followed up in a subsequent event-related brain potentials (ERP) study to identify the signature of target detection. In contrast to missed targets, hits were characterized by a larger frontal negativity and by a more pronounced centro-parietal P3b wave. Whereas the latter process was also observed in the visual domain, indicating a post-perceptual updating process, the frontal negativity was exclusively observed for auditory DID. This modality-specific process might signal that early attentional control processes support conscious access to relevant auditory events.

No Evidence for an Auditory Attentional Blink for Voices Regardless of Musical Expertise

Background: Attending to goal-relevant information can leave us metaphorically "blind" or "deaf" to the next relevant information while searching among distracters. This temporal cost lasting for about a half a second on the human selective attention has been long explored using the attentional blink paradigm. Although there is evidence that certain visual stimuli relating to one's area of expertise can be less susceptible to attentional blink effects, it remains unexplored whether the dynamics of temporal selective attention vary with expertise and objects types in the auditory modality. Methods: Using the auditory version of the attentional blink paradigm, the present study investigates whether certain auditory objects relating to musical and perceptual expertise could have an impact on the transient costs of selective attention. In this study, expert cellists and novice participants were asked to first identify a target sound, and then to detect instrumental timbres of cello or organ, or human voice as a second target in a rapid auditory stream. Results: The results showed moderate evidence against the attentional blink effect for voices independent of participants' musical expertise. Experts outperformed novices in their overall accuracy levels of target identification and detection, reflecting a clear benefit of musical expertise. Importantly, the musicianship advantage disappeared when the human voices served as the second target in the stream. Discussion: The results are discussed in terms of stimulus salience, the advantage of voice processing, as well as perceptual and musical expertise in relation to attention and working memory performances.

Intensity Resolution in Individuals With Parkinson's Disease: Sensory and Auditory Memory Limitations

Purpose The purpose of the current study was to examine sensory and auditory memory limitations on intensity resolution in individuals with Parkinson's disease as compared to healthy older and younger adults. Method Nineteen individuals with Parkinson's disease, 10 healthy age- and hearing-matched adults, and 10 healthy young adults were studied. The listeners participated in 2 intensity discrimination tasks: a lower memory load 4IAX task (sensory limitations) and a higher memory load ABX task (auditory memory limitations). Intensity resolution was examined across groups and tasks using a bias-free measurement of signal detectability known as d' (d-prime). Listeners also participated in a loudness scaling task where they were instructed to rate the loudness level of each signal intensity along the experimental continuum using a computerized 150-mm visual analog scale. Results Intensity discrimination sensitivity (d') was significantly poorer in the 4IAX and ABX conditions for the individuals with Parkinson's disease, as compared to the older and younger controls. Furthermore, a significant age-related difference was identified for the loudness scaling condition. The younger controls rated most stimuli along the experimental continuum significantly louder as compared to the older controls and the individuals with Parkinson's disease. Conclusions The present discrimination data suggest sensory and auditory memory limitations may contribute to the intensity resolution issues associated with Parkinson's disease. Age-related differences in loudness scaling will be reviewed.

Shared or Distinct Attentional Resources? Confounds in Dual Task Designs, Countermeasures, and Guidelines

Human information processing is limited by attentional resources. That is, via attentional mechanisms humans select information that is relevant for their goals, and discard other information. While limitations of attentional processing have been investigated extensively in each sensory modality, there is debate as to whether sensory modalities access shared resources, or if instead distinct resources are dedicated to individual sensory modalities. Research addressing this question has used dual task designs, with two tasks performed either in a single sensory modality or in two separate modalities. The rationale is that, if two tasks performed in separate sensory modalities interfere less or not at all compared to two tasks performed in the same sensory modality, then attentional resources are distinct across the sensory modalities. If task interference is equal regardless of whether tasks are performed in separate sensory modalities or the same sensory modality, then attentional resources are shared across the sensory modalities. Due to their complexity, dual task designs face many methodological difficulties. In the present review, we discuss potential confounds and countermeasures. In particular, we discuss 1) compound interference measures to circumvent problems with participants dividing attention unequally across tasks, 2) staircase procedures to match difficulty levels of tasks and counteracting problems with interpreting results, 3) choosing tasks that continuously engage participants to minimize issues arising from task switching, and 4) reducing motor demands to avoid sources of task interference, which are independent of the involved sensory modalities.

Cortical sources of the auditory attentional blink

Attentional blink (AB) refers to the situation where correctly identifying a target impairs the processing of a subsequent probe in a sequence of stimuli. Although the AB often coincides with a modulation of scalp-recorded cognitive event-related potentials (ERPs), the neural sources of this effect remain unclear. In two separate experiments, we used classical LORETA analysis recursively applied (CLARA) to estimate the neural sources of ERPs elicited by an auditory probe when it immediately followed an auditory target (i.e., AB condition), when no auditory target was present (i.e., no-AB condition), and when the probe followed an auditory target but occurred outside of the AB time window (i.e., no-AB condition). We observed a processing deficit when the probe immediately followed the target, and this auditory AB was accompanied by reduced P3b amplitude. Contrasting brain electrical source activity from the AB and no-AB conditions revealed reduced source activity in the medial temporal region as well as in the temporoparietal junction (extending into inferior parietal lobe), ventromedial prefrontal cortex, left anterior thalamic nuclei, mammillary body, and left cerebellum. The results indicate that successful probe identification following a target relies on a widely distributed brain network and further support the suggestion that the auditory AB reflects the failure of the probe to reach short-term consolidation. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Within a rapid succession of auditory stimuli, the perception of a predefined target sound often impedes listeners' ability to detect another target sound that is presented close in succession. This attentional blink may be related to activity in brain areas supporting attention and memory. We show that the auditory attentional blink is associated with brain activity changes in a network including the medial temporal lobe, parietal cortex, and prefrontal cortex. This study suggests that a problem in the interaction between attention and memory underlies the auditory attentional blink.

Is Attentional Resource Allocation Across Sensory Modalities Task-Dependent?

Human information processing is limited by attentional resources. That is, via attentional mechanisms, humans select a limited amount of sensory input to process while other sensory input is neglected. In multisensory research, a matter of ongoing debate is whether there are distinct pools of attentional resources for each sensory modality or whether attentional resources are shared across sensory modalities. Recent studies have suggested that attentional resource allocation across sensory modalities is in part task-dependent. That is, the recruitment of attentional resources across the sensory modalities depends on whether processing involves object-based attention (e.g., the discrimination of stimulus attributes) or spatial attention (e.g., the localization of stimuli). In the present paper, we review findings in multisensory research related to this view. For the visual and auditory sensory modalities, findings suggest that distinct resources are recruited when humans perform object-based attention tasks, whereas for the visual and tactile sensory modalities, partially shared resources are recruited. If object-based attention tasks are time-critical, shared resources are recruited across the sensory modalities. When humans perform an object-based attention task in combination with a spatial attention task, partly shared resources are recruited across the sensory modalities as well. Conversely, for spatial attention tasks, attentional processing does consistently involve shared attentional resources for the sensory modalities. Generally, findings suggest that the attentional system flexibly allocates attentional resources depending on task demands. We propose that such flexibility reflects a large-scale optimization strategy that minimizes the brain’s costly resource expenditures and simultaneously maximizes capability to process currently relevant information.

Auditory Stimulus Detection Partially Depends on Visuospatial Attentional Resources

Humans’ ability to detect relevant sensory information while being engaged in a demanding task is crucial in daily life. Yet, limited attentional resources restrict information processing. To date, it is still debated whether there are distinct pools of attentional resources for each sensory modality and to what extent the process of multisensory integration is dependent on attentional resources. We addressed these two questions using a dual task paradigm. Specifically, participants performed a multiple object tracking task and a detection task either separately or simultaneously. In the detection task, participants were required to detect visual, auditory, or audiovisual stimuli at varying stimulus intensities that were adjusted using a staircase procedure. We found that tasks significantly interfered. However, the interference was about 50% lower when tasks were performed in separate sensory modalities than in the same sensory modality, suggesting that attentional resources are partly shared. Moreover, we found that perceptual sensitivities were significantly improved for audiovisual stimuli relative to unisensory stimuli regardless of whether attentional resources were diverted to the multiple object tracking task or not. Overall, the present study supports the view that attentional resource allocation in multisensory processing is task-dependent and suggests that multisensory benefits are not dependent on attentional resources.

Audition and vision share spatial attentional resources, yet attentional load does not disrupt audiovisual integration

Humans continuously receive and integrate information from several sensory modalities. However, attentional resources limit the amount of information that can be processed. It is not yet clear how attentional resources and multisensory processing are interrelated. Specifically, the following questions arise: (1) Are there distinct spatial attentional resources for each sensory modality? and (2) Does attentional load affect multisensory integration? We investigated these questions using a dual task paradigm: participants performed two spatial tasks (a multiple object tracking task and a localization task), either separately (single task condition) or simultaneously (dual task condition). In the multiple object tracking task, participants visually tracked a small subset of several randomly moving objects. In the localization task, participants received either visual, auditory, or redundant visual and auditory location cues. In the dual task condition, we found a substantial decrease in participants' performance relative to the results of the single task condition. Importantly, participants performed equally well in the dual task condition regardless of the location cues' modality. This result suggests that having spatial information coming from different modalities does not facilitate performance, thereby indicating shared spatial attentional resources for the auditory and visual modality. Furthermore, we found that participants integrated redundant multisensory information similarly even when they experienced additional attentional load in the dual task condition. Overall, findings suggest that (1) visual and auditory spatial attentional resources are shared and that (2) audiovisual integration of spatial information occurs in an pre-attentive processing stage.

Irrelevant auditory and visual events induce a visual attentional blink

In the present study we investigated whether a task-irrelevant distractor can induce a visual attentional blink pattern. Participants were asked to detect only a visual target letter (A, B, or C) and to ignore the preceding auditory, visual, or audiovisual distractor. An attentional blink was observed regardless of the distractor modality. The magnitude of the attentional blink was greater when the target was preceded by a visual or an audiovisual distractor than when the target letter was preceded by an auditory distractor. The presence of a distractor-induced attentional blink regardless of the distractor modality suggests that the attentional blink phenomenon is at least partly due to an amodal processing limitation.

Impacts of age on memory for auditory intensity

It is hypothesized that older listeners are more likely than younger listeners to be impaired when asked to make intensity judgments about target tones embedded in rapidly presented auditory sequences. This study examined this hypothesis by asking listeners ranging in age from 19 to 74 yr to make judgments of intensity based on narrowband noise bursts varying in frequency and intensity. In two experiments, listeners made intensity judgments of target bursts alone or embedded in sequences of bursts. In the first experiment, one of four fixed sequences was presented and had to be identified. In the second experiment, pre- or post-trial bursts acted as cues that identified the frequency of the target burst in the sequence. In both experiments, intensity discrimination thresholds for single bursts were good predictors of performance with sequences and were little affected by age. Significant negative relationships between age and accuracy were observed when single sequences had to be identified or a post-trial cue was used, but no age effects were apparent when a pre-trial cue was used. These data are interpreted as being consistent with previous suggestions that the aging process results in a decline in auditory memory capacity and/or internally generated selective attention.

Attention, awareness, and the perception of auditory scenes

Auditory perception and cognition entails both low-level and high-level processes, which are likely to interact with each other to create our rich conscious experience of soundscapes. Recent research that we review has revealed numerous influences of high-level factors, such as attention, intention, and prior experience, on conscious auditory perception. And recently, studies have shown that auditory scene analysis tasks can exhibit multistability in a manner very similar to ambiguous visual stimuli, presenting a unique opportunity to study neural correlates of auditory awareness and the extent to which mechanisms of perception are shared across sensory modalities. Research has also led to a growing number of techniques through which auditory perception can be manipulated and even completely suppressed. Such findings have important consequences for our understanding of the mechanisms of perception and also should allow scientists to precisely distinguish the influences of different higher-level influences.

A shared cortical bottleneck underlying Attentional Blink and Psychological Refractory Period

Doing two things at once is difficult. When two tasks have to be performed within a short interval, the second is sharply delayed, an effect called the Psychological Refractory Period (PRP). Similarly, when two successive visual targets are briefly flashed, people may fail to detect the second target (Attentional Blink or AB). Although AB and PRP are typically studied in very different paradigms, a recent detailed neuromimetic model suggests that both might arise from the same serial stage during which stimuli gain access to consciousness and, as a result, can be arbitrarily routed to any other appropriate processor. Here, in agreement with this model, we demonstrate that AB and PRP can be obtained on alternate trials of the same cross-modal paradigm and result from limitations in the same brain mechanisms. We asked participants to respond as fast as possible to an auditory target T1 and then to a visual target T2 embedded in a series of distractors, while brain activity was recorded with magneto-encephalography (MEG). For identical stimuli, we observed a mixture of blinked trials, where T2 was entirely missed, and PRP trials, where T2 processing was delayed. MEG recordings showed that PRP and blinked trials underwent identical sensory processing in visual occipito-temporal cortices, even including the non-conscious separation of targets from distractors. However, late activations in frontal cortex (>350 ms), strongly influenced by the speed of task-1 execution, were delayed in PRP trials and absent in blinked trials. Our findings suggest that PRP and AB arise from similar cortical stages, can occur with the same exact stimuli, and are merely distinguished by trial-by-trial fluctuations in task processing.

Is attentional blink a byproduct of neocortical attractors?

This study proposes a computational model for attentional blink or “blink of the mind,” a phenomenon where a human subject misses perception of a later expected visual pattern as two expected visual patterns are presented less than 500 ms apart. A neocortical patch modeled as an attractor network is stimulated with a sequence of 14 patterns 100 ms apart, two of which are expected targets. Patterns that become active attractors are considered recognized. A neocortical patch is represented as a square matrix of hypercolumns, each containing a set of minicolumns with synaptic connections within and across both minicolumns and hypercolumns. Each minicolumn consists of locally connected layer 2/3 pyramidal cells with interacting basket cells and layer 4 pyramidal cells for input stimulation. All neurons are implemented using the Hodgkin–Huxley multi-compartmental cell formalism and include calcium dynamics, and they interact via saturating and depressing AMPA/NMDA and GABA_A synapses. Stored patterns are encoded with global connectivity of minicolumns across hypercolumns and active patterns compete as the result of lateral inhibition in the network. Stored patterns were stimulated over time intervals to create attractor interference measurable with synthetic spike traces. This setup corresponds with item presentations in human visual attentional blink studies. Stored target patterns were depolarized while distractor patterns where hyperpolarized to represent expectation of items in working memory. Simulations replicated the basic attentional blink phenomena and showed a reduced blink when targets were more salient. Studies on the inhibitory effect of benzodiazepines on attentional blink in human subjects were compared with neocortical simulations where the GABA_A receptor conductance and decay time were increased. Simulations showed increases in the attentional blink duration, agreeing with observations in human studies. In addition, sensitivity analysis was performed on key parameters of the model, including Ca²⁺-gated K⁺ channel conductance, synaptic depression, GABA_A channel conductance and the NMDA/AMPA ratio of charge entry.

Capturing and Unmasking the Mask in the Auditory Attentional Blink

Key to our understanding of the temporal limits of attention as reflected in the attentional blink (AB) – the failure to report the second of two targets (T1 and T2) presented in close succession – is the detrimental impact of posttarget distractors, accounted for typically by the construct of masking. Within the context of the auditory AB, we tested the notion of masking by seeking to perceptually “capture” the T2 + 1 distractor away from the target-containing sequence to examine whether perceptual organizational factors could, instead, explain the action of T2 + 1. Using monaural sequences of tones, the presentation of T2 + 1 contralaterally to the rest of the sounds produced the AB. However, the AB was abolished when that contralateral T2 + 1 was perceptually grouped with an induction sequence of irrelevant tones presented to the contralateral ear. Such findings are consistent with a selection-based approach to the AB that emphasizes failure of inhibition and misselection while suggesting a diminished role for masking.

Audiovisual semantic interference and attention: evidence from the attentional blink paradigm

In the present study we investigate the role of attention in audiovisual semantic interference, by using an attentional blink paradigm. Participants were asked to make an unspeeded response to the identity of a visual target letter. This target letter was preceded at various SOAs by a synchronized audiovisual letter-pair, which was either congruent (e.g. hearing an "F" and viewing an "F") or incongruent (e.g. hearing an "F" and viewing a "Z"). In Experiment 1, participants were asked to match the members of the audiovisual letter-pair. In Experiment 2, participants were asked to ignore the synchronized audiovisual letter-pairs altogether and only report the visual target. In Experiment 3, participants were asked to identify only one of the audiovisual letters (identify the auditory letter, and ignore the synchronized visual letter, or vice versa). An attentional blink was found in all three experiments indicating that the audiovisual letter-pairs were processed. However, a congruency effect on subsequent target detection was observed in Experiments 1 and 3, but not in Experiment 2. The results indicate that attention to the semantic contents of at least one modality is necessary to establish audiovisual semantic interference.

Judgments of intensity for brief sequences

The ability to make intensity judgments for sequential stimuli was examined with an intensity-discrimination task involving three 50-ms noise bursts with non-overlapping frequency ranges. Targets (single bursts) presented in three-burst sequences were required to be as much as 5 dB more intense than targets presented as single bursts in isolation, especially for the later targets. Randomizing target position in the sequence did not reliably reduce performance, nor were thresholds for younger and older listeners reliably different. These increases in increment detection threshold are indications of a specific intensity-processing deficit for stimuli occurring later in a sequence.

A quick visual mind can be a slow auditory mind. Individual differences in attentional selection across modalities

The human mind is severely limited in processing concurrent information at a conscious level of awareness. These temporal restrictions are clearly reflected in the attentional blink (AB), a deficit in reporting the second of two targets when it occurs 200-500 ms after the first. However, we recently reported that some individuals do not show a visual AB, and presented psychophysiological evidence that target processing differs between "blinkers" and "nonblinkers". Here, we present evidence that visual nonblinkers do show an auditory AB, which suggests that a major source of attentional restriction as reflected in the AB is likely to be modality-specific. In Experiment 3, we show that when the difficulty in identifying visual targets is increased, nonblinkers continue to show little or no visual AB, suggesting that the presence of an AB in the auditory but not in the visual modality is not due to a difference in task difficulty.

Effect of distractor sounds on the auditory attentional blink

Four experiments were conducted to determine whether or not the presence and placement of distractors in a rapid serial auditory stream has any influence on the emergence of the auditory attentional blink (AB). Experiment 1 revealed that the presence of distractors is necessary to produce the auditory AB. In Experiments 2 and 3, the auditory AB was reduced when the distractor immediately following the probe was replaced by silence but not when the distractor following the target was replaced by silence. Finally, in Experiment 4, only a very small auditory AB was found to remain when all distractors following the probe were replaced by silence. These results suggest that the auditory AB is affected both by the overwriting of the probe by the distractors following it and by a reduction in discriminability generated by all of the distractors presented in the sequence.

Delayed Masking and the Auditory Attentional Blink

The attentional blink (AB) corresponds to a transient deficit in reporting the second (T2) of two targets embedded in a rapid sequence of distractors. The retrieval competition ( Shapiro, Raymond & Arnell, 1994 ) and bottleneck models ( Chun & Potter, 1995 ; Jolicœur, 1998 ) predict the attenuation of the deficit with the extension of the delay between T2 and its mask. This prediction was tested using auditory sequences of nonverbal stimuli in which the T2-mask interval was systematically varied. The magnitude of the auditory AB diminished with the lengthening of the interval from 50 to 150 ms while no time-locked deficit was observed with the longest (350 ms) and the shortest (10 ms) intervals. These results suggest that presenting a mask after T2 is not sufficient to produce an auditory AB: The mask must be perceivable as an auditory event distinct from the target and occur before T2 consolidation. The present study also provides evidence that as in vision, AB deficits take place in the auditory domain when T2 is masked by interruption but not by integration. Our findings are best accounted for in terms of bottlenecked processing limitations.