Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Continuous multitalker spatial attention task procedure. The figure illustrates the visual cues presented on screen to participants during the task while they listened to a series of short stories. The target and masker (when present) alternate between spatial locations. Only the target story is present in the mono-talker condition, but the spatial location of the talker still switches sides as shown by the red line. Participants are instructed to focus on the side of the screen indicated by the “+” symbol, which marks the location of the target story. They are also instructed to press the spacebar when they hear a color word spoken by the target speaker (red “X” symbols) and ignore any color words in the masker story (blue “O” symbols).
- Figure 2.
Histograms illustrating the distribution of performance scores across five cognitive and psychoacoustic predictors. Larger RT difference scores (Flanker, Stroop, and Trail Making) indicate greater response (cognitive) interference in each domain (i.e., slower RTs for the incongruent/alternating trials than the congruent/sequential trials).
- Figure 3.
Attentional modulation of speech-evoked neural activity in dual-talker conditions at electrode Fz. Error bars indicate standard error. A, Grand average ERP waveforms of the target and masker speech. B, Difference waveforms between target and masker stories.
- Figure 4.
Attentional modulation of speech-evoked neural activity comparing mono- and dual-talker conditions at electrode Fz. Error bars indicate standard error. A, Grand average ERP waveforms comparing the dual-talker target condition to the mono condition. B, Difference waveforms (mono-target), where positive values indicate larger N1 amplitudes in the dual-talker target condition than in the mono condition. C, Grand average ERP waveforms comparing the dual-talker masker condition to the mono condition. D, Difference waveforms (mono-masker speech), where negative values indicate smaller N1 amplitudes in the dual-talker masker condition compared with the mono condition.
- Figure 5.
Effect plots illustrating the relationship between each predictor and the N1 amplitude difference. All other predictors are held constant. The shaded regions represent 95% confidence intervals for the N1 amplitude differences. N1 amplitude differences are calculated as the N1 amplitude for the target talker minus that of the masker talker; lower values on the y-axis correspond to larger differences in N1 amplitude between the target and masker streams. Arrows on the x-axis denote better performance on the cognitive and psychoacoustic tests.
- Figure 6.
The 95% confidence intervals for the regression coefficients of each predictor.
- Figure 7.
Cognitive and psychoacoustic abilities predict attentional modulation of speech representations. Results of the LOOCV. The graph shows the predicted and actual N1 amplitude differences for each participant.
- Figure 8.
Bivariate correlations between each predictor and the N1 amplitude differences. Arrows on the x-axis denote better performance on the cognitive and psychoacoustic tests.
- Figure 9.
Histogram illustrating the distribution of proportion of color word hits in the continuous multitalker spatial attention task. Arrows on the x-axis denote better performance on the cognitive and psychoacoustic tests.
- Figure 10.
Effect plots illustrating the relationship between each predictor and the proportion of color word hits. All other predictors are held constant. The shaded regions represent 95% confidence intervals for the proportion of color word hits.
- Figure 11.
A scatterplot showing the relationship between the proportion of color word hits and N1 amplitude differences. Arrows on the x-axis denote better performance on the cognitive and psychoacoustic tests.
Tables
β SE t p GDW Intercept 0.000 0.149 0.000 1.000 Flanker 0.047 0.168 0.277 0.784 0.005 Stroop 0.598 0.178 3.370 0.003 0.166 TMT −0.009 0.182 −0.518 0.611 0.026 Reading Span 0.649 0.167 3.894 0.001 0.278 TFS −0.359 0.182 −1.971 0.064 0.108 Criterion variable: N1 amplitude difference between target and masker stories in the continuous multitalker spatial attention task. Predictors: performance on (1) Flanker, (2) Stroop, (3) TMT, (4) TFS, and (5) Reading Span. All variables were z-standardized. GDW indicates the relative importance of each predictor in the model. Overall adjusted R2 = 0.467; p = 0.005.
- Table 2.
Pairwise Pearson's correlation coefficients of the performance on cognitive tasks
Flanker Stroop TMT Reading span TFS Flanker r = 1.000 r = −0.369 r = 0.065 r = 0.245 r = −0.127 p = 0.076 p = 0.763 p = 0.248 p = 0.555 Stroop r = 1.000 r = 0.156 r = −0.393 r = 0.196 p = 0.467 p = 0.057 p = 0.358 TMT r = 1.000 r = −0.023 r = 0.520 p = 0.917 p = 0.009 Reading Span r = 1.000 r = −0.075 p = 0.727 TFS r = 1.000 β SE t p GDW Intercept 0.000 0.218 0.000 1.000 0.000 Flanker −0.020 0.246 −0.082 0.935 0.003 Stroop 0.070 0.260 0.269 0.791 0.002 TMT −0.348 0.267 −1.305 0.208 0.067 Reading Span 0.135 0.244 0.551 0.589 0.009 TFS 0.230 0.267 0.861 0.400 0.020 This model is using the same five cognitive and psychoacoustic predictors to predict the proportion of color word hits in the continuous multitalker spatial attention task. All variables were z-standardized. Overall adjusted R2 = −0.144; p = 0.828.
In this issue
