Most participants in a dichotic listening task are:

. 2007 Aug;14(4):699-703.

doi: 10.3758/bf03196824.

Affiliations

  • PMID: 17972736
  • DOI: 10.3758/bf03196824

Individual differences in working memory capacity and divided attention in dichotic listening

Gregory J H Colflesh et al. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Aug.

Abstract

The controlled attention theory of working memory suggests that individuals with greater working memory capacity (WMC) are better able to control or focus their attention than individuals with lesser WMC. This relationship has been observed in a number of selective attention paradigms including a dichotic listening task (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001) in which participants were required to shadow words presented to one ear and ignore words presented to the other ear. Conway et al. found that when the participant's name was presented to the ignored ear, 65% of participants with low WMC reported hearing their name, compared to only 20% of participants with high WMC, suggesting greater selective attention on the part of high WMC participants. In the present study, individual differences in divided attention were examined in a dichotic listening task, in which participants shadowed one message and listened for their own name in the other message. Here we find that 66.7% of high WMC and 34.5% of low WMC participants detected their name. These results suggest that as WMC capacity increases, so does the ability to control the focus of attention, with high WMC participants being able to flexibly "zoom in" or "zoom out" depending on task demands.

Similar articles

  • Auditory distraction in school-age children relative to individual differences in working memory capacity.

    Nagaraj NK, Magimairaj BM, Schwartz S. Nagaraj NK, et al. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2020 Oct;82(7):3581-3593. doi: 10.3758/s13414-020-02056-5. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2020. PMID: 32494910

  • From dichotic listening to the irrelevant sound effect: a behavioural and neuroimaging analysis of the processing of unattended speech.

    Beaman CP, Bridges AM, Scott SK. Beaman CP, et al. Cortex. 2007 Jan;43(1):124-34. doi: 10.1016/s0010-9452(08)70450-7. Cortex. 2007. PMID: 17334212 Review.

  • The role of working memory in dichotic-listening studies of auditory laterality.

    Penner IK, Schläfli K, Opwis K, Hugdahl K. Penner IK, et al. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2009 Nov;31(8):959-66. doi: 10.1080/13803390902766895. Epub 2009 Apr 8. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2009. PMID: 19358008

  • Focusing on attention: the effects of working memory capacity and load on selective attention.

    Ahmed L, de Fockert JW. Ahmed L, et al. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43101. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043101. Epub 2012 Aug 28. PLoS One. 2012. PMID: 22952636 Free PMC article.

  • A locus coeruleus-norepinephrine account of individual differences in working memory capacity and attention control.

    Unsworth N, Robison MK. Unsworth N, et al. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017 Aug;24(4):1282-1311. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1220-5. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017. PMID: 28108977 Review.

Cited by

  • Working Memory: From Neural Activity to the Sentient Mind.

    Jaffe RJ, Constantinidis C. Jaffe RJ, et al. Compr Physiol. 2021 Sep 23;11(4):2547-2587. doi: 10.1002/cphy.c210005. Compr Physiol. 2021. PMID: 34558671 Free PMC article.

  • Acute alcohol intoxication and the cocktail party problem: do "mocktails" help or hinder?

    Harvey AJ, Beaman CP. Harvey AJ, et al. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2021 Nov;238(11):3083-3093. doi: 10.1007/s00213-021-05924-6. Epub 2021 Jul 27. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2021. PMID: 34313803 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.

  • Effect of Auditory Distraction on Working Memory, Attention Switching, and Listening Comprehension.

    Nagaraj NK. Nagaraj NK. Audiol Res. 2021 May 28;11(2):227-243. doi: 10.3390/audiolres11020021. Audiol Res. 2021. PMID: 34071364 Free PMC article.

  • A Neuroergonomics Approach to Mental Workload, Engagement and Human Performance.

    Dehais F, Lafont A, Roy R, Fairclough S. Dehais F, et al. Front Neurosci. 2020 Apr 7;14:268. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00268. eCollection 2020. Front Neurosci. 2020. PMID: 32317914 Free PMC article. Review.

  • What Can Computational Models Learn From Human Selective Attention? A Review From an Audiovisual Unimodal and Crossmodal Perspective.

    Fu D, Weber C, Yang G, Kerzel M, Nan W, Barros P, Wu H, Liu X, Wermter S. Fu D, et al. Front Integr Neurosci. 2020 Feb 27;14:10. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2020.00010. eCollection 2020. Front Integr Neurosci. 2020. PMID: 32174816 Free PMC article. Review.

References

    1. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004 Jun;133(2):189-217 - PubMed
    1. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Dec;9(4):637-71 - PubMed
    1. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Jun;130(2):169-83 - PubMed
    1. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Jun;8(2):331-5 - PubMed
    1. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Nov;30(6):1302-21 - PubMed

MeSH terms

What does the dichotic listening task show?

A dichotic-listening task requires the subject to shadow, or repeat aloud, a message presented to one ear while ignoring a message presented to the other ear. Early work using the dichotic listening paradigm revealed that subjects were very capable of successful shadowing and successful blocking.

What is the dichotic listening procedure quizlet?

dichotic listening. refers to any situation in which different sounds are presented to the 2 ears. - if 2 different & competing acoustic signal are delivered to each of the ears at the same time, generally the right ear does a better job of reporting verbal stimuli.

What is an example of dichotic listening?

Dichotic listening tasks require listeners to attend to different words, phrases, or short sentences presented simultaneously to each ear. For example, a listener under headphones may be presented the double-pair digits “6–2” in the left ear and, at the same time, “4-1” in the right.

Which of the following drivers is most likely to get into an accident?

Teen drivers are among the most likely to get into an auto accident. Statistics show that, per mile driven, teen drivers between the ages of 16 and 19 are three times more likely than drivers over the age of 20 to be in a fatal auto accident.