Sex differences in dichotic listening

The present study quantified the magnitude of sex differences in perceptual asymmetries as measured with dichotic listening. This was achieved by means of a meta-analysis of the literature dating back from the initial use of dichotic listening as a measure of laterality. The meta-analysis included 249 effect sizes pertaining to sex differences and 246 effect sizes for the main effect of laterality. The results showed small and homogeneous sex differences in laterality in favor of men (d=0.054). The main effect of laterality was of medium magnitude (d=0.609) but it was heterogeneous. Homogeneity for the main effect of laterality was achieved through partitioning as a function of task, demonstrating larger asymmetries for verbal (d=0.65) than for non-verbal tasks (d=0.45). The results are discussed with reference to top-down and bottom-up factors in dichotic listening. The possible influence of a publication bias is also discussed.     

Pure-tone perception and ear advantages in dichotic listening

A same-different matching task was used to investigate how subjects perceived a dichotic pair of pure tones. Pairs of stimulus tones in four frequency ranges (center frequencies of 400–1,700 Hz), with separations between 40 and 400 Hzt were tested. Five types of test tones were matched to the stimulus pair: the stimulus pair presented again (control) or crossed over (same tones, different ears), the geometric mean of the two tones, or a binaural tone of the low or high tone of the pair. In the lowest frequency range and the highest with maximum separation, the crossed-over test tones were perceived as different from the same stimulus tones. A bias for perceiving the higher tone of a pair was evident in the frequency ranges with separations of 40-200 Hz. In the lowest frequency range, the bias was for perceiving the higher tone in the right ear. This restricted ear advantage in the perception of pure tones was not significantly related to the right-ear advantage in dichotic word monitoring.     

Stimulus intensity, attentional instructions, and the ear advantage during dichotic listening

The present experiment was designed to investigate the effects of the following two variables on the identification of dichotically presented CV syllables: (1) the relative difference in intensity levels of the stimuli presented to the two ears and (2) the instructions to attend to both ears or to focus attention on one ear. As expected for a verbal task, more CV's were identified from the right ear than from the left ear. Furthermore, identification of stimuli presented to one ear improved when (1) those stimuli were relatively higher in volume than the stimuli presented to the other ear and (2) when subjects were instructed to focus attention on only that ear rather than distribute attention across both ears. Of particular importance is the finding that the effects of relative stimulus intensity are the same under conditions of focused attention as under conditions of divided attention. This finding is inconsistent with an attention explantation of the relative intensity effects. Instead, the results are consistent with a model of dichotic listening in which ear of stimulus presentation and relative stimulus intensity influence a perceptual stage of information processing and attentional instructions influence a subsequent response selection stage.     

Laterality differences in speaker and consonant identification in dichotic listening

Two dichotic listening experiments assess the lateralization of speaker identification in right-handed native English speakers. Stimuli were tokens of /ba/, /da/, /pa/, and /ta/ pronounced by two male and two female speakers. In Experiment 1, subjects identified either the two consonants in dichotic stimuli spoken by the same person, or identified two speakers in dichotic tokens of the same syllable. In Experiment 2 new subjects identified the two consonants or the two speakers in pairs in which both consonant and speaker distinguished the pair members. Both experiments yielded significant right-ear advantages for consonant identification and nonsignificant ear differences for speaker identification. Fewer errors were made for speaker judgments than for consonant judgments, and for speaker judgments for pairs in which the speakers were of the same sex than for pairs in which speaker sex differed. It is concluded that, as in vowel identification, neither hemisphere clearly dominates in dichotic speaker identification, perhaps because of minor information loss in the ipsilateral pathways.     

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

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.     

Manipulation of voice onset time during dichotic listening

The manipulation of voice onset time (VOT) during dichotic listening has provided novel insights regarding brain function. To date, the most common design is the utilisation of four VOT conditions: short-long pairs (SL), where a CV syllable with a short VOT is presented to the left ear and a CV syllable with a long VOT is presented to the right ear as well as long-short (LS), short-short (SS) and long-long (LL) pairs. Rimol, Eichele, and Hugdahl (2006) first reported that in healthy adults SL pairs elicit the largest REA while, in fact, LS pairs elicit a significant left ear advantage (LEA). This VOT effect was replicated by Sandmann et al. (2007). A study of children aged 5-8years of age has shown a developmental trajectory whereby long VOTs gradually start to dominate over short VOTs when LS pairs are being presented under dichotic conditions (Westerhausen, Helland, Ofte, & Hugdahl, 2010). Two studies have investigated attentional modulation of the VOT effect in children and adults. The converging evidence from these studies shows that at around 9years of age children lack the adult-like cognitive flexibility required to exert top-down control over stimulus-driven bottom-up processes (Andersson, Llera, Rimol, & Hugdahl, 2008; Arciuli, Rankine, & Monaghan, 2010). Arciuli et al. further demonstrated that this kind of cognitive flexibility is a predictor of proficiency with complex tasks such as reading. A review of each of these studies, the possible mechanisms underlying the VOT effect and directions for future research are discussed.     

The effect of memory load on the right ear advantage in dichotic listening

The right ear advantage (REA) observed in dichotic tests was further investigated to examine the effects of memory load on the task. Memory load was operationally defined as the duration of time wherein subjects were asked to retain the stimuli, with no rehearsal, prior to recall. The delay periods interpolated between dichotic stimulation and recall were: no delay, 5, 10, and 15 sec delay. There was a significant REA in the no delay condition. The conditions with interpolated delay periods showed a substantial loss in overall accuracy, and at 15 sec delay showed a strong REA. The results offer suggestive evidence for a lateralized memory mechanism for storing speech sounds.     

Attentional strategies in dichotic listening

A person can attend to a message in one ear while seemingly ignoring a simultaneously presented verbal message in the other ear. There is considerable controversy over the extent to which the unattended message is actually processed. This issue was investigated by presenting dichotic messages to which the listeners responded by buttonpressing (not shadowing) to color words occurring in the primary ear message while attempting to detect a target word in either the primary ear or secondary ear message. Less than 40% of the target words were detected in the secondary ear message, whereas for the primary ear message (and also for either ear in a control experiment), target detection was approximately 80%. Furthermore, there was a significant negative correlation between buttonpressing performance and secondary ear target-detection performance. The results were interpreted as being inconsistent with automatic processing theories of attention.     

Component problems in dichotic listening

The experiments reported examined monitoring for semantically defined targets whilst concurrently shadowing (Experiment I) or listening silently (Experiment II). The word lists for monitoring were either visual or auditory. Monitoring and shadowing accuracy showed less interference when presentation was bimodal than when it was dichotic. However, monitoring latency and recognition memory for shadowed material did not show this effect. It is argued that these data reveal the existence of a number of different sources of potential difficulty in dichotic listening situations and the nature of these is discussed.     

The effects of attention on ear advantages in dichotic listening to words and affects

This study examined the effects of attention on ear advantages using dichotic listening to words and affects, a focused-attention paradigm. We compared the mixed condition, in which attention is switched between the ears in each trial, to the blocked condition, in which attention is directed to one ear for an entire block of trials. Results showed a decreased right ear advantage for word processing only in the mixed condition and an increased left ear advantage for emotion processing in both attention conditions for hits index. The mixed condition showed smaller laterality effects than the blocked condition for words with respect to hits index, while increasing right ear predominance for intrusions. The greater percentage of intrusions in the right ear for the word task and in the mixed condition suggests that the right ear (left hemisphere) is most vulnerable to attention switching. We posit that the attention manipulation has a greater effect on word processing than on emotion processing and propose that ear advantages reflect a combination of the effects of attentional and structural constraints on lateralisation.     

Children's recall strategies in dichotic listening

Normal adults spontaneously adopt different recall strategies in reporting dichotic material presented at different rates. A channel by channel or ear order is used with the faster rate of input and a pair by pair or temporal order is used with the slower rate of input. The purpose of the present report is to study the frequency of the different orders of report in children as a function of the rate of input of dichotic stimulation. Twenty-four normal children, 9–10 years of age, were given the dichotic listening task under three rate conditions. The children used different recall strategies as a function of rate of input in the same manner as that reported for adults. In addition, the order of presentation of the different rates of input was found to influence the relative frequency of the different recall strategies. A significant positive correlation was found between intelligence and the frequency of use of only the temporal recall strategy in its appropriate (slow) rate condition.     

Perceptual processing in dichotic listening.

Subjects heard two lists of 4 items each presented simultaneously to the two ears at a rate of four pairs of items per sec. A recall cue presented immediately after the test list signalled report of 4 of the 8 items. In recall by spatial location, the cue indicated whether the items on the right ear on left ear should be recalled. In recall by category name, the cue indicated the superset category (e.g., letters or words) of the items to be recalled. Recall by spatial location was not significantly different than recall by category name. This results argues against the idea of a preperceptual auditory storage that holds information along spatial channels for 1 or 2 sec. The final experiment showed that recall by spatial location is significantly better than recall by category name when the report cue is given before, not after, the list presentation. These results show that spatial location can be used to enhance semantic processing and/or memory of 1 of 2 simultaneous items, but only if the relevant location is known at the time of the item presentation.     

The syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift in dichotic listening

Children at two age levels, 6 to 7 years and 9 to 10 years, listened to pairs of words presented dichotically to the left and right ear either simultaneously or in immediate succession. Their task was to report what they heard after each pair. The experimental pairs involved either syntagmatic relations (e.g., bird-fly) or paradigmatic relations (table-chair). The younger children correctly identified more syntagmatic than paradigmatic pairs (using control pairs as a base) while the older children correctly identified more paradigmatic pairs. There was no difference between associated and nonassociated pairs. The results are taken to mean that pragmatic, serial relations dominate the semantic organization of younger children and that logical, hierarchical relations make their impact later in the course of development.