Abstract
RationaleTo test the notion that alcohol impairs auditory attentional control by reducing the listener’s cognitive capacity.ObjectivesWe examined the effect of alcohol consumption and working memory span on dichotic speech shadowing and the cocktail party effect—the ability to focus on one of many simultaneous speakers yet still detect mention of one’s name amidst the background speech. Alcohol was expected either to increase name detection, by weakening the inhibition of irrelevant speech, or reduce name detection, by restricting auditory attention on to the primary input channel. Low-span participants were expected to show larger drug impairments than high-span counterparts.MethodsOn completion of the working memory span task, participants (n = 81) were randomly assigned to an alcohol or placebo beverage treatment. After alcohol absorption, they shadowed speech presented to one ear while ignoring the synchronised speech of a different speaker presented to the other. Each participant’s first name was covertly embedded in to-be-ignored speech.ResultsThe “cocktail party effect” was not affected by alcohol or working memory span, though low-span participants made more shadowing errors and recalled fewer words from the primary channel than high-span counterparts. Bayes factors support a null effect of alcohol on the cocktail party phenomenon, on shadowing errors and on memory for either shadowed or ignored speech.ConclusionFindings suggest that an alcoholic beverage producing a moderate level of intoxication (M BAC ≈ 0.08%) neither enhances nor impairs the cocktail party effect.
Highlights
The human ability to comprehend a single speaker amidst a clamour of irrelevant background speech is remarkable
As high-working memory capacity (WMC) listeners are thought to be superior at inhibiting auditory interference, we expected low-WMC participants to notice and recall more words from the “unattended” speech than high-span counterparts
The WMC × alcohol treatment interaction was non-significant, F(1, 77) = 3.69, p = 0.06, ηp2 = 0.046. Bayes factors support these null results, BFincl = 0.233 for WMC, BFincl = 0.252 for alcohol and BFincl = 0.248 for the interaction between these two factors. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the impact of alcohol on auditory selective attention and, through inclusion of an operation span (OSPAN) task, the possibility it impairs attentional control by reducing WMC
Summary
The human ability to comprehend a single speaker amidst a clamour of irrelevant background speech is remarkable. According to Broadbent’s (1958) classic account, the absence of semantic irrelevant speech analysis implies a blocking filter that controls attentional load by allowing only the target message access to higher processing For this early selection mechanism to work, ongoing physical analysis of all acoustic inputs must occur for listeners to discriminate primary from non-primary channels. Psychopharmacology own-name detectors showed a temporary drop in shadowing accuracy immediately after name onset, possibly reflecting a shift in attention from the primary to secondary information channel This led to the notion that Broadbent’s attentional filter must attenuate rather than block non-primary speech inputs (Treisman 1964), this does not explain why the majority (65%) of Wood and Cowan’s (1995) participants failed to detect their name at all. Different perspectives on the influence of alcohol on attention and cognition provide contrasting predictions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
