We first replicated the language-familiarity effect for voice discrimination and found better voice discrimination in familiar languages. However, when listeners were not cued to listen for changes, both English and Spanish speakers exhibited greater change deafness in their familiar language. Results suggest that lexical/semantic attention in a familiar language and increased indexical processing in an unfamiliar language can produce greater change deafness in familiar languages.
ConnollyJ. F.StewartS. H.PhillipsN. A. (1990). The effects of processing requirements on neurophysiological responses to spoken sentences. Brain and Language, 39, 302–318.
2.
DrewT.VoM. L. H.WolfeJ. M. (2013). The invisible gorilla strikes again: Sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers. Psychological Science, 24, 1848–1853.
3.
FennK. M.ShintelH.AtkinsA. S.SkipperJ. I.BondV. C.NusbaumH. C. (2011). When less is heard than meets the ear: Change deafness in a telephone conversation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1442–1456.
4.
GogginJ. P.ThompsonC. P.StrubeG.SimentalL. R. (1991). The role of language familiarity in voice identification. Memory & Cognition, 19, 448–458.
5.
GreggM. K.SamuelA. G. (2008). Change deafness and the organizational properties of sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 974–991.
6.
GreggM. K.SnyderJ. S. (2012). Enhanced sensory processing accompanies successful detection of change for real-world sounds. NeuroImage, 62, 113–119.
7.
LeviS. V.SchwartzR. G. (2013). The development of language-specific and language-independent talker processing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 913–920.
8.
McLennanC. T.LuceP. A. (2005). Examining the time course of indexical specificity effects in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 31, 306–321.
9.
MullennixJ. W.PisoniD. B. (1990). Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 379–390.
10.
ParmentierF. B. R. (2008). Towards a cognitive model of distraction by auditory novelty: The role of involuntary attention capture and semantic processing. Cognition, 109, 345–362.
11.
PerrachioneT. K.PierrehumbertJ. B.WongP. C. M. (2009). Differential neural contributions to native- and foreign-language talker identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1950–1960.
12.
RamaP.Relander-SyrjanenK.CarlsonS.SalonenO.KujalaT. (2012). Attention and semantic processing during speech: An fMRI study. Brain & Language, 122, 114–119.
13.
VitevitchM. S. (2003). Change deafness: The inability to detect changes between two voices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 333–342.
14.
VitevitchM. S.DonosoA. (2011). Processing of indexical information requires time: Evidence from change deafness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1484–1493.
15.
WintersS. J.LeviS. V.PisoniD. B. (2008). Identification and discrimination of bilingual talkers across languages. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 4524–4538.
