NeuroImageNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
Impoverished auditory cues limit engagement of brain networks controlling spatial selective attention
Yuqi DengiD, Inyong ChoiiD, Barbara G. Shinn‐CunninghamiD, Robert BaumgartneriD
Abstract
Spatial selective attention enables listeners to process a signal of interest in natural settings. However, most past studies on auditory spatial attention used impoverished spatial cues: presenting competing sounds to different ears, using only interaural differences in time (ITDs) and/or intensity (IIDs), or using non-individualized head-related transfer functions (HRTFs). Here we tested the hypothesis that impoverished spatial cues impair spatial auditory attention by only weakly engaging relevant cortical networks. Eighteen normal-hearing listeners reported the content of one of two competing syllable streams simulated at roughly +30 {degrees} and -30{degrees} azimuth. The competing streams consisted of syllables from two different-sex talkers. Spatialization was based on natural spatial cues (individualized HRTFs), individualized IIDs, or generic ITDs. We measured behavioral performance as well as electroencephalographic markers of selective attention. Behaviorally, subjects recalled target streams most accurately with natural cues. Neurally, spatial attention significantly modulated early evoked sensory response magnitudes only for natural cues, not in conditions using only ITDs or IIDs. Consistent with this, parietal oscillatory power in the alpha band (8-14 Hz; associated with filtering out distracting events from unattended directions) showed significantly less attentional modulation with isolated spatial cues than with natural cues. Our findings support the hypothesis that spatial selective attention networks are only partially engaged by impoverished spatial auditory cues. These results not only suggest that studies using unnatural spatial cues underestimate the neural effects of spatial auditory attention, they also illustrate the importance of preserving natural spatial cues in assistive listening devices to support robust attentional control.
- organism: human
- assay: electronic health records
- research focus: differential expression
- approach: statistical model
- Citations
- 26
- FWCI
- 1.60
- Field percentile
- top 18%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Listening shapes seeing: Sustained auditory spatial attention enhances early visual-cortical processing
Yong Min Choi, Viola S. Störmer·bioRxiv·Aug 20, 2026
- Weak neural signatures of spatial selective auditory attention in hearing-impaired listeners
Lia M. Bonacci, Lengshi Dai, Barbara G. Shinn‐Cunningham·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaPeer-reviewed·Oct 1, 2019
- The Role of Spatial Separation on Selective and Distributed Attention to Speech
Danna Pinto, Galit Agmon, Elana Zion Golumbic·bioRxiv·Jan 27, 2020
- Non-spatial features reduce the reliance on sustained spatial auditory attention
Lia M. Bonacci, Scott Bressler, Barbara G. Shinn‐Cunningham·Ear and HearingPeer-reviewed·Apr 15, 2020
- Selective auditory attention modulates cortical responses to sound location change for speech in quiet and in babble
Erol J. Ozmeral, Katherine N. Menon·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Jan 13, 2023
- Speech Stream Tracking in 2D: Attention Differentially Enhances Acoustic and Phonemic Encoding Across Spatial Planes
Varvara Kenti Kranidioti, Marc Schönwiesner·bioRxiv·Jun 3, 2026