Stimulus Uncertainty and Insensitivity to Pitch-change Direction

Overview

Journal J Acoust Soc Am

Publisher American Institute of Physics

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2010 Dec 2

PMID 21117752

Citations 9

Authors

Samuel R Mathias

Christophe Micheyl

Peter J Bailey

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In a series of experiments, Semal and Demany [(2006). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 3907-3915] demonstrated that some normally hearing listeners are unable to determine the direction of small but detectable differences in frequency between pure tones. Unlike studies demonstrating similar effects in patients with brain damage, the authors used stimuli in which the standard frequency of the tones was highly uncertain (roved) over trials. In Experiment 1, listeners were identified as insensitive to the direction of pitch changes using stimuli with frequency roving. When listeners were retested using stimuli without roving in Experiment 2, impairments in pitch-direction identification were generally much less profound. In Experiment 3, frequency-roving range had a systematic effect on listeners' thresholds, and impairments in pitch-direction identification tended to occur only when the roving range was widest. In Experiment 4, the influence of frequency roving was similar for continuous frequency changes as for discrete changes. Possible explanations for the influence of roving on listeners' insensitivity to pitch-change direction are discussed.

Citing Articles

Individual differences in temporal order judgment.

Fostick L, Zwilling M, Babkoff H Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):1062.

PMID: 39774025 PMC: 11706935. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-84082-z.

Electrophysiological and Psychophysical Measures of Temporal Pitch Sensitivity in Normal-hearing Listeners.

Guerit F, Harland A, Richardson M, Gransier R, Middlebrooks J, Wouters J J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2022; 24(1):47-65.

PMID: 36471208 PMC: 9971391. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-022-00879-7.

Inadequate pitch-difference sensitivity prevents half of all listeners from discriminating major vs minor tone sequences.

Ho J, Mann D, Hickok G, Chubb C J Acoust Soc Am. 2022; 151(5):3152.

PMID: 35649937 PMC: 9098252. DOI: 10.1121/10.0010161.

Adaptive auditory brightness perception.

Siedenburg K, Barg F, Schepker H Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):21456.

PMID: 34728660 PMC: 8563846. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-00707-7.

Patterns of enhancement in paretic shoulder kinematics after stroke with musical cueing.

Kang S, Shin J, Kim I, Lee J, Lee J, Jeong E Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):18109.

PMID: 33093633 PMC: 7582907. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-75143-0.

References

Foxton J, Dean J, Gee R, Peretz I, Griffiths T . Characterization of deficits in pitch perception underlying 'tone deafness'. Brain. 2004; 127(Pt 4):801-10. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awh105. View

Demany L, Semal C . The slow formation of a pitch percept beyond the ending time of a short tone burst. Percept Psychophys. 2006; 67(8):1376-83. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193642. View

Moore B . Relation between the critical bandwidth and the frequency-difference limen. J Acoust Soc Am. 1974; 55(2):359. DOI: 10.1121/1.1914512. View

Wier C, Jesteadt W, Green D . Frequency discrimination as a function of frequency and sensation level. J Acoust Soc Am. 1977; 61(1):178-84. DOI: 10.1121/1.381251. View

Jesteadt W, BILGER R . Intensity and frequency discrimination in one- and two-interval paradigms. J Acoust Soc Am. 1974; 55(6):1266-76. DOI: 10.1121/1.1914696. View

Durlach N, Braida L . Intensity perception. I. Preliminary theory of intensity resolution. J Acoust Soc Am. 1969; 46(2):372-83. DOI: 10.1121/1.1911699. View

Demany L, Ramos C . On the binding of successive sounds: perceiving shifts in nonperceived pitches. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 117(2):833-41. DOI: 10.1121/1.1850209. View

Demany L, Pressnitzer D, Semal C . Tuning properties of the auditory frequency-shift detectors. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 126(3):1342-8. DOI: 10.1121/1.3179675. View

Pelli D . Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. J Opt Soc Am A. 1985; 2(9):1508-32. DOI: 10.1364/josaa.2.001508. View

10.

Macmillan N, KAPLAN H, Creelman C . The psychophysics of categorical perception. Psychol Rev. 1977; 84(5):452-71. View

11.

Mauermann M, Long G, Kollmeier B . Fine structure of hearing threshold and loudness perception. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004; 116(2):1066-80. DOI: 10.1121/1.1760106. View

12.

Foxton J, Weisz N, Bauchet-Lecaignard F, Delpuech C, Bertrand O . The neural bases underlying pitch processing difficulties. Neuroimage. 2009; 45(4):1305-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.068. View

13.

Lutfi R . A model of auditory pattern analysis based on component-relative-entropy. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993; 94(2 Pt 1):748-58. DOI: 10.1121/1.408204. View

14.

Suzuki Y, Takeshima H . Equal-loudness-level contours for pure tones. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004; 116(2):918-33. DOI: 10.1121/1.1763601. View

15.

Kaernbach C . Simple adaptive testing with the weighted up-down method. Percept Psychophys. 1991; 49(3):227-9. DOI: 10.3758/bf03214307. View

16.

Micheyl C, Messing D . Likelihood ratio, optimal decision rules, and correct response probabilities in a signal detection theoretic, equal-variance Gaussian model of the observer in the 4IAX paradigm. Percept Psychophys. 2006; 68(5):725-35. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193696. View

17.

Neff D, Dethlefs T . Individual differences in simultaneous masking with random-frequency, multicomponent maskers. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995; 98(1):125-34. DOI: 10.1121/1.413748. View

18.

Neff D, Callaghan B . Effective properties of multicomponent simultaneous maskers under conditions of uncertainty. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988; 83(5):1833-8. DOI: 10.1121/1.396518. View

19.

Demany L, Carlyon R, Semal C . Continuous versus discrete frequency changes: different detection mechanisms?. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 125(2):1082-90. DOI: 10.1121/1.3050271. View

20.

Semal C, Demany L . Individual differences in the sensitivity to pitch direction. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 120(6):3907-15. DOI: 10.1121/1.2357708. View