View in EDS PDF Full Text

Altered Selective Attention or Increased Imagination: Effects of Eye Closure on Vocal Expression Perception.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Altered Selective Attention or Increased Imagination: Effects of Eye Closure on Vocal Expression Perception.
Authors: Jiang, Xiaoming1,2 xiaoming.jiang@shisu.edu.cn, Luo, Renneng1,2, Yang, Qi3
Source: Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. Apr2026, Vol. 69 Issue 4, p1395-1418. 24p.
Subject Terms: *Computer software, *Data analysis, *Fatigue (Physiology), *Confidence, *Anxiety, *Communication, *Speech perception, *Imagination, *College students, Statistical models, Prompts (Psychology), Task performance, Sound, Research funding, Selectivity (Psychology), Factorial experiment designs, Questionnaires, Chi-squared test, Multivariate analysis, Physiological aspects of speech, Sound recordings, Odds ratio, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Statistics, Intraclass correlation, Confidence intervals, Blinking (Physiology), Eye movements
Abstract: Purpose: This study investigated how eye closure (EC) affects vocal expression perception, testing two hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 proposes that EC enhances selective attention to task-related cues while suppressing prosodic processing, predicting higher expressiveness ratings for full (unmodified) versus filtered (acoustically degraded stimuli under eye-closed conditions) stimuli. Hypothesis 2 posits that EC activates compensatory imagination, expecting filtered (semantically neutral) stimuli to elicit higher ratings than full stimuli. Method: Forty listeners completed three tasks: sound verification task (detecting probe sounds), confidence rating task (evaluating listener-perceived confidence levels), and expressiveness rating (assessing emotional expressiveness) under EC and eyes-open (EO) conditions across full and filtered auditory modes. Results: The findings supported Hypothesis 1: EC led to significantly higher confidence and expressiveness ratings than the EO condition. Filtered stimuli received lower ratings than full stimuli across tasks, suggesting that EC enhanced selective attention to vocal prosody without engaging imaginative compensation (Hypothesis 2). Notably, EC did not affect sound verification hit rates, implying that its facilitative effects are more salient in cognitively demanding tasks (e.g., subjective ratings) than basic sound detection. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that EC enhances vocal perception primarily through selective attention mechanisms, not imagination. The study advances theoretical understanding of EC's role in modulating attentional allocation during vocal processing, while highlighting (a) cognitive effects of shortterm visual deprivation on auditory perception and (b) dynamic cross-modal interactions between visual withdrawal and acoustic cue integration during speech comprehension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Purpose: This study investigated how eye closure (EC) affects vocal expression perception, testing two hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 proposes that EC enhances selective attention to task-related cues while suppressing prosodic processing, predicting higher expressiveness ratings for full (unmodified) versus filtered (acoustically degraded stimuli under eye-closed conditions) stimuli. Hypothesis 2 posits that EC activates compensatory imagination, expecting filtered (semantically neutral) stimuli to elicit higher ratings than full stimuli. Method: Forty listeners completed three tasks: sound verification task (detecting probe sounds), confidence rating task (evaluating listener-perceived confidence levels), and expressiveness rating (assessing emotional expressiveness) under EC and eyes-open (EO) conditions across full and filtered auditory modes. Results: The findings supported Hypothesis 1: EC led to significantly higher confidence and expressiveness ratings than the EO condition. Filtered stimuli received lower ratings than full stimuli across tasks, suggesting that EC enhanced selective attention to vocal prosody without engaging imaginative compensation (Hypothesis 2). Notably, EC did not affect sound verification hit rates, implying that its facilitative effects are more salient in cognitively demanding tasks (e.g., subjective ratings) than basic sound detection. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that EC enhances vocal perception primarily through selective attention mechanisms, not imagination. The study advances theoretical understanding of EC's role in modulating attentional allocation during vocal processing, while highlighting (a) cognitive effects of shortterm visual deprivation on auditory perception and (b) dynamic cross-modal interactions between visual withdrawal and acoustic cue integration during speech comprehension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10924388
DOI:10.1044/2025_JSLHR-25-00294