↓ Skip to main content

Listening back in time: Does attention to memory facilitate word-in-noise identification?

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Listening back in time: Does attention to memory facilitate word-in-noise identification?
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, September 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13414-018-1586-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. M. Vanessa Chan, Claude Alain

Abstract

The ephemeral nature of spoken words creates a challenge for oral communications where incoming speech sounds must be processed in relation to representations of just-perceived sounds stored in short-term memory. This can be particularly taxing in noisy environments where perception of speech is often impaired or initially incorrect. Usage of prior contextual information (e.g., a semantically related word) has been shown to improve speech in noise identification. In three experiments, we demonstrate a comparable effect of a semantically related cue word placed after an energetically masked target word in improving accuracy of target-word identification. This effect persisted irrespective of cue modality (visual or auditory cue word) and, in the case of cues after the target, lasted even when the cue word was presented up to 4 seconds after the target. The results are framed in the context of an attention to memory model that seeks to explain the cognitive and neural mechanisms behind processing of items in auditory memory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 26%
Student > Master 5 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 43%
Linguistics 4 17%
Neuroscience 4 17%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2018.
All research outputs
#15,115,997
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#696
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,615
of 339,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.