Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm Universitycontrol syllables (same in both ears) where presentedin each trial so maximum score was 12syllables. Participants were divided into twogroups after their aggregate performance in themost demanding, forced left ear condition, inthe four noise levels.ProcedureParticipants sat in a silent room in front of acomputer screen and responded by pressing thefirst letter of the perceived syllable on a keyboard.Syllables and noise where presentedthrough earphones. Conditions and syllableswere presented in random order and the experimentwas programmed in E-prime 1.2 (Psychologysoftware). Nine trials of stimuli werepresented; the first time was the non-forcedbaseline condition. The remaining eight trialswhere either forced left ear or forced right earpresented under the four noise conditions. Thetesting session lasted for approximately 20 minutes.Experiment 2. Visuo-Spatial WM taskParticipantsTwenty students at Stockholm University aged18-44 years (M=32,3), 9 men and 11 women. 3where left-handed and 17 right handed.Design and materialThe design was a 4 x 2, where noise (no noise,noise left ear, noise right ear, noise both ears)were the within subject manipulation and performancelevel (high vs. low performers) werethe between group manipulation. The noise levelwas set in accordance with earlier studies to77 dB. The visuo-spatial WM task (Spanboard2009) consists of red dots (memory stimuli)that are presented one at a time at a computerscreen in a four by four grid. Inter-stimulus intervalswere 4 seconds, target is shown 2 secand a 2 sec pause before next target turns up.Participants are asked to recall location, and theorder in which the red dots appear. The workingmemory load increases after every secondtrial and the WM capacity is estimated based onthe number of correctly recalled dots. Participantswere divided into two groups after theirperformance in the spanboard task, an aggregatemeasure of their result in all four conditions.The results for high performers wherebetween 197-247 points (n=9) and low performersbetween 109-177 points (n=11).yProcedureParticipants sat in a silent room in front of acomputer screen and responded by using themouse pointer. The noise was presented in headphones. Recall time is not limited and participantsclick on a green arrow when they decideto continue. Every participant performs the testfour times, one time in each noise condition.Order of noise conditions were randomized.ResultsExperiment 1. Dichotic listeningIn the non-forced baseline condition a significantright ear advantage was shown. A maineffect of attention was found in favor for theright ear, more syllables were recalled in theforced right ear condition in comparison withthe forced left ear, (Figure 1). There was nomain effect of noise while noise affected conditionsdifferently. An interaction between attentionand noise was found (F(28,3) = 5.66, p =.004) In the forced left condition noise exposuredid not affect performance at all, the small increasein the lowest noise condition was nonsignificant.A facilitating effect of noise wasfound in the forced right ear condition, themore noise the better performance (F(30,1) =5.63, p = .024).8.07.57.06.56.05.55.04.54.0Recall as a Function of Attention and NoiseNoise, p = .024Left EarRight earN1 N2 N3 N4Noise LevelsNoise x attention, p = .004Figure 1. Number correct recalled syllables as afunction of noise. Noise levels were N1= no noise,N2 = 50 dB, N3 = 60 dB, and N4 = 72 dB.When participants where divided according toperformance in the dichotic listening task, noiseimproved performance for both groups in theforced-right ear condition. A trend was found inns.162
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm UniversityNumber correct recalled dotsthe forced-left condition where high performersdeteriorated by noise and there was no changefor low performers (p = .094)Experiment 2. Visuo-spatial WM taskNo effect of noise was present when the entiresample was investigated. However, when participantswere divided into two groups based ontheir test performance a two way ANOVA revealeda trend towards interaction between lateralizednoise and group (F(16,3)=2.95,p=.065). When noise exposure to both ears wasexcluded from the ANOVA it did reach significance(F(17,2)=4.13, p=.024). Further interactionswere found between group and nonoise vs. noise left ear (F(18,1)= 8.76, p=.008)and between left ear and right ear(F(18,1)=4.59, p=.046). No interaction wasfound between group and noise right ear vs.noise both ears (Figure 2).6055504540353025Recall as a Function of Noise and Groupoverall: noise x group p = .065p = .008 p = .046 ns.High PerformersLow PerformersNo noise Noise left Noise right Noise bothFigure 2. Number correct recalled dots as a functionof laterlized noise. (77 dB, left ear, right ear, bothears, or no noise)Noteworthy is that the low performing groupconsisted nine women and two men whereasthe high performing group consisted of twowomen and seven men. However the genderand noise interaction did not reach significancebut indicated a trend (p= .096).Paired samples t-test showed that the noiseincrement in left ear for the low performinggroup was significant (t(10)=2.25, p=.024 onetailed) and the decrement for the high performinggroup in the same condition significant aswell (t(8)=1.98, p=.042 one tailed).ConclusionsThe rationale behind these two studies was toinvestigate effects of noise in two cognitivetasks that put high demands on executive functionsand working memory in a normal population.Results showed that there was an effect ofnoise in both experiments. In the dichotic listeningexperiment there was a main effect ofnoise derived from the forced-right ear condition.In the visuo-spatial working memory taskthere was no main effect of noise. However,when you split the group in two, high and lowperformers, you get significant results in accordancewith predictions.The most intriguing result in the presentstudy is the lateralization effect of noise exposurein the visuo-spatial working memory task.Firstly, we have shown that the noise effect iscross modal, auditory noise exerted an effect ona visual task. Secondly, the pattern of high andlow performers was inverted (in all conditions).The lateralization effect could have two possibleexplanations; the noise exposure to the righthemisphere either interacts with the rightdominantlateralized task specific activation inthe visuo-spatial task, or it activates crucial attentionalnetworks like the right dorsolateralpre-frontal cortex (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002).In the dichotic listening experiment we onlygot effects in the easy, forced-right ear condition,that owes a large signal-to-noise ratio. Themore demanding forced-left ear condition mayget improved by noise exposure when exposedto inattentive, ADHD participants, this will betested in upcoming experiments.To gain such prominent group effects despitethe homogeneity of the group consistingof university students demonstrates a large potentialfor future studies on participants withattentional problems, such as in ADHD.AcknowledgementsData collection was made by students from theDepartment of Linguistics and from students atthe speech therapist program. This research wasfunded by a grant from Swedish ResearchCouncil (VR 421-2007-2479).163
Page 1 and 2:
Department of LinguisticsProceeding
Page 3 and 4:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 127 and 128: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 161: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227:
Department of LinguisticsPhonetics
show all

Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?