The role of spatial separation of two talkers' auditory stimuli in the listener's memory of running speech: listening effort in a non-noisy conversational setting.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of the spatial position of conversing talkers, that is, spatially separated or co-located, in the listener's short-term memory of running speech and listening effort. DESIGN: In two experiments (between-subject), participants underwent a dual-task paradigm, including a listening (primary) task wherein male and female talkers spoke coherent texts. Talkers were either spatially separated or co-located (within-subject). As a secondary task, visually presented tasks were used. Experiment I involved a number-judgement task, and Experiment II entailed switching between number and letter-judgement task. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-four young adults who reported normal hearing and normal or corrected to normal vision participated in each experiment. They were all students from the RWTH Aachen University. RESULTS: In both experiments, similar short-term memory performance of running speech was found independently of talkers being spatially separated or co-located. Performance in the secondary tasks, however, differed between these two talkers' auditory stimuli conditions, indicating that spatially separated talkers imposed reduced listening effort compared to their co-location. CONCLUSION: The findings indicated that auditory-perceptive information, such as the spatial position of talkers, plays a role in higher-level auditory cognition, that is, short-term memory of running speech, even when listening in quiet.

Modality compatibility biases voluntary choice of response modality in task switching.

The term modality compatibility refers to the similarity between stimulus modality and the modality of response-related sensory consequences (e.g., vocal responses produce auditory effects). The previous results showed smaller task-switching costs when participants switched between modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal and visual-manual) compared to switching between modality incompatible tasks (auditory-manual and visual-vocal). In the present study using a voluntary task-switching paradigm (VTS), participants chose the response modality (vocal or manual) to indicate the location of either a visual or an auditory stimulus. We examined whether free task choices were biased by modality compatibility, so that modality compatible tasks are preferred in VTS. The choice probability analysis indicated that participants tended to choose the response modality that is compatible to the stimulus modality. However, participants did not show a preference to repeat a stimulus-response (S-R) modality mapping, but to switch between modality compatibility (i.e., from S-R modality compatible mapping to S-R modality incompatible mapping and vice versa). More interestingly, even though participants freely chose the response modality, modality compatibility still influenced task-switching costs, showing larger costs with modality incompatible mappings. The finding that modality compatibility influenced choice behaviour suggests components of both top-down control and bottom-up effects of selecting a response modality for different stimulus modalities.

Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality.

The term modality compatibility refers to the similarity between the stimulus modality and the modality of response-related sensory consequences. Previous research showed evidence for modality compatibility benefits in task switching, when participants switch either between two modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal and visual-manual) or between two modality incompatible tasks (auditory-manual and visual-vocal). However, it remained unclear whether there is also a modality compatibility benefit when participants switch between a modality compatible and an incompatible task. To this end, in Experiment 1, we kept the same design as in earlier studies, so participants had to switch either between modality compatible or modality incompatible spatial discrimination tasks, but in Experiment 2A, participants switched at the response level (manual/vocal) while we kept the stimulus modality constant across tasks, and in Experiment 2B, they switched at the stimulus level (visual/auditory) while we kept the response modality constant across tasks. We found increased switch costs in modality incompatible tasks in Experiment 1, but no such a difference between modality compatible and incompatible tasks in Experiment 2A and 2B, supporting the idea that modality incompatible tasks increase crosstalk, due to the response-based priming of the competing task, but this crosstalk is reduced if the competing task involves either the same stimulus modality or the same response modality. We conclude that a significant impact of modality compatibility in task switching requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality.

Short-term pre-exposure to modality mappings: Modality-incompatible single-task exposure reduces modality-specific between-task crosstalk in task-switching.

Modality compatibility refers to the similarity of the stimulus modality and the modality of the sensory-response effect that the response produces (i.e., vocal responses produce auditory effects). In this study, we investigated the effect of short-term pre-exposure of modality compatibility in task-switching. To this end, participants were exposed to either modality-compatible (visual-manual and auditory-vocal) or modality-incompatible (visual-vocal and auditory-manual) single-tasks. After a short-term single-task pre-exposure (with either both modality-compatible tasks, 2 × 80 trials each, or both modality-incompatible tasks, 2 × 80 trials each), participants were transferred to a task-switching situation, where they switched between tasks in both a modality-compatible and an incompatible condition. We found that after pre-exposure to modality-compatible single-tasks the typical effect of modality compatibility was found (i.e., larger switch costs with modality-incompatible tasks compared to modality-compatible tasks). In contrast, after pre-exposed to modality-incompatible single-tasks, modality compatibility no longer influenced switch costs. We assume that long-term modality-compatible associations could be overridden by short-term, task-specific associations to reduce between-task crosstalk.

Children's intentional switching of auditory selective attention in spatial and noisy acoustic environments in comparison to adults.

Children's development and education take place in educational buildings with highly complex acoustic scenes, including spatially distributed target speakers, many surrounding distracting sounds, and general background noises. Auditory selective attention, therefore, is a valuable tool to orient oneself, to focus on specific sound sources, and to extract relevant information. Until now, it is unknown to what extent children have developed the cognitive processes of intentional attention control in spatial situations and how they differ from adults. This work provides a paradigm to examine children's intentional switching of auditory selective attention that also allows to examine effects due to noisy and spatial sound environments presented virtually via headphones. A listening experiment was conducted in Germany with 24 children (6-10 years, 50% female) and 24 young adults (18-26 years, 50% female). First, results revealed higher error rates and lower reaction times in conditions with noise (relative to conditions without noise) for children, but not for adults. This assumes that children are more sensitive to noise and conclude faster with noise trials, taking errors into account. Second, although auditory attention flexibility reflected in attention switch and relevant information selection was comparable between children and adults, it was found that adults benefited from spatial cues when selecting the relevant information. This was not observed to the same extent in children. These results suggest that children's cognitive processes are affected at significantly lower noise levels than adults and that noise effect assessment methods should consider spatial aspects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The interplay of crossmodal attentional preparation and modality compatibility in cued task switching.

Two experiments examined the influence of preparation on modality compatibility effects in task switching. The term modality compatibility refers to the similarity between the stimulus modality and the modality of response-related sensory consequences. Previous research showed evidence for modality compatibility benefits in task switching when participants switched either between two modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal and visual-manual) or between two modality incompatible tasks (auditory-manual and visual-vocal). In this study, we investigated the influence of active preparation on modality compatibility effects in task switching. To this end, in Experiment 1, we introduced unimodal modality cues, whereas in Experiment 2, bimodal abstract cues were used. In both experiments, the cue-stimulus interval (CSI) was manipulated while holding the response-stimulus interval (RSI) constant. In both experiments, we found not only decreased switch costs with long CSI but also the elimination of the residual switch costs. More importantly, this preparation effect did not modulate the modality compatibility effect in task switching. To account for this data pattern, we assume that cue-based preparation of switches by modality mappings was highly effective and produced no residual reaction time (RT) costs with long CSI.

Influences of Postural Control on Cognitive Control in Task Switching.

The aim of the current study was to investigate the effects of postural control demands on cognitive control processes in concurrent auditory-manual task switching. To this end, two experiments were conducted using an auditory cued task-switching paradigm with different postural control demands (sitting vs. standing). This design allowed us to explore the effect of postural control on switch costs, mixing costs, and the between-task congruency effect. In addition, we varied the cue-based task preparation in Experiment 1 to examine whether preparation processes are independent of additional postural control demands or if the motor control processes required by the postural control demands interfere with task-specific cognitive preparation processes. The results show that we replicated the standard effects in task switching, such as switch costs, mixing costs, and congruency effects in both experiments as well as a preparation-based reduction of these costs in Experiment 1. Importantly, we demonstrated a selective effect of postural control demands in task switching in terms of an increased congruency effect when standing as compared to sitting. This finding suggests that particularly in situations that require keeping two tasks active in parallel, the postural control demands have an influence on the degree to which cognitive control enforces a more serial (shielded) mode or a somewhat less selective attention mode that allows for more parallel processing of concurrently held active task rules.