{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04325032765399738, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015727391874180863, 'mean_word_length': 4.531400966183575, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Pre-trial and post-trial cueing of masker location in a localization-in-noise task

Localization accuracy for a target presented in a simultaneous masker, whose location varies randomly from trial to trial, improves when a preview of the masker location is provided (by playing a sound from that location) prior to the target + masker interval (i.e., a pre-trial cue) [B. Simpson, Ph.D. dissertation (Wright State University, 2011)]. One explanation is that knowing the masker location allows a listener to establish a “spatial attention filter” at the masker location. The present study compares the effect of such a pre-trial cue to the case in which the cue comes after the target + masker interval (post-trial cueing). That is, the cue is presented either 500 ms prior to the onset of a 60-ms, 100-Hz click-train target embedded in a 60-ms broadband masker, or 500 ms subsequent to the offset of the target + masker stimulus. The data indicate that both cue types lead to similar improvements in performance over the no-cue condition, with the greatest improvement from cueing (~6 dB) seen for localization in the left/right dimension. While these data are roughly consistent with previous results, they cannot be explained by a simple spatial filter hypothesis.Localization accuracy for a target presented in a simultaneous masker, whose location varies randomly from trial to trial, improves when a preview of the masker location is provided (by playing a sound from that location) prior to the target + masker interval (i.e., a pre-trial cue) [B. Simpson, Ph.D. dissertation (Wright State University, 2011)]. One explanation is that knowing the masker location allows a listener to establish a “spatial attention filter” at the masker location. The present study compares the effect of such a pre-trial cue to the case in which the cue comes after the target + masker interval (post-trial cueing). That is, the cue is presented either 500 ms prior to the onset of a 60-ms, 100-Hz click-train target embedded in a 60-ms broadband masker, or 500 ms subsequent to the offset of the target + masker stimulus. The data indicate that both cue types lead to similar improvements in performance over the no-cue condition, with the greatest improvement from cueing (~6 dB) seen for locali...