Sign in
NeuroscienceFrontiers in Human Neuroscience
Peer-reviewed journal article

Do we parse the background into separate streams in the cocktail party?

Orsolya SzalárdyiD, Brigitta TóthiD, Dávid FarkasiD, Gábor OrosziD, István WinkleriD

Abstract

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWIn the cocktail party situation, people with normal hearing usually follow a single speaker among multiple concurrent ones. However, there is no agreement in the literature as to whether the background is segregated into multiple streams/speakers. The current study varied the number of concurrent speech streams and investigated target detection and memory for the contents of a target stream as well as the processing of distractors. A male-spoken target stream was either presented alone (single-speech), together with one male-spoken (one-distractor), or a male- and a female-spoken distractor (two-distractor). Behavioral measures of target detection and content tracking performance as well as target- and distractor detection related ERPs were assessed. We found that the detection sensitivity and the target N2b amplitude decreased whereas the P3b amplitude increased from the single-speech to the concurrent speech streams conditions. Importantly, the behavioral distractor effect differed between the conditions with one- vs. two-distractor (distraction by the female speaker was lower than that of the male speaker in either condition) and the target N2b elicited in the presence of two distractors was significantly smaller than that elicited in the presence of one distractor. Further, the voltage in the N2b time window significantly differed between the one- and two-distractor conditions for the same (M2) speaker. These results show that speech processing was different in the presence of one vs. two distractors, and thus, the current data suggest that the two background speech streams were segregated from each other.

PDFDOI

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers
Citations
2
FWCI
0.26
Field percentile
48th percentile

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.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISPinto '22Sánchez‐Cos '25Bidelman '24Luthra '26Kovács '22Brown '22
76% semantic matchNeuroscience
Danna Pinto, Maya Kaufman, Adi Brown+1 more·Cerebral Cortex·Oct 7, 2022· 6 citations