Literature DB >> 15581117

Reconsidering evidence for the suppression model of the octave illusion.

Christopher D Chambers1, Jason B Mattingley, Simon A Moss.   

Abstract

The octave illusion is elicited by a sequence of tones presented to each ear that continuously alternate in frequency by one octave, but with high and low frequencies always in different ears. The percept for most listeners is a high pitch in one ear, alternating with a low pitch in the other ear. The influential suppression model of the illusion proposed by Deutsch and Roll (1976) carries three postulates: first, that listeners perceive only the pitch of the tones presented to their dominant ear; second, that this pitch is heard in whichever ear received the higher frequency tone; and third, that this apparent dissociation between what and where mechanisms arises from sequential interactions between the tones. In the present article, we reappraise evidence for the suppression model and demonstrate (1) the incompatibility of the theory with the existing literature on pitch perception, sound localization, and ear dominance and (2) methodological limitations in studies that have claimed to provide support for the suppression model. We conclude by proposing an alternative theory of the octave illusion that is based on established principles of fusion, rather than suppression, between ears.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15581117     DOI: 10.3758/bf03196617

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  50 in total

1.  Dichotic competition of simultaneous tone burst of different frequency--III. The effects of stimulus parameters on suppression and ear dominance functions.

Authors:  R Efron; E W Yund
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1975-04       Impact factor: 3.139

2.  Difference thresholds for interaural delay.

Authors:  E R Hafter; J De Maio; W S Hellman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1975-01       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Binaural suppression of nonechoes.

Authors:  P L Divenyi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Masking by ipsilateral and contralateral maskers.

Authors:  J H Mills; J R Dubno; N He
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Dichotic fusion of two tones one octave apart: evidence for internal octave templates.

Authors:  L Demany; C Semal
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Pitch, consonance, and harmony.

Authors:  E Terhardt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Lateralization and the binaural masking-level difference.

Authors:  G B Henning
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1974-06       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Noise masking of a change in residue pitch.

Authors:  R D Patterson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1969-06       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Central auditory processing. IV. Ear dominance--spatial and temporal complexity.

Authors:  R Efron; B Koss; E W Yund
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  1983-07       Impact factor: 2.381

10.  Some observations on the lateralization of complex waveforms.

Authors:  G B Henning
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  4 in total

1.  Does an auditory perceptual illusion affect on-line auditory action control? The case of (de)accentuation and synchronization.

Authors:  Bruno H Repp
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-09-22       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  "Octave illusion" or "Deutsch's illusion"?

Authors:  Alfredo Brancucci; Caterina Padulo; Luca Tommasi
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2008-05-27

3.  An auditory illusion reveals the role of streaming in the temporal misallocation of perceptual objects.

Authors:  Anahita H Mehta; Nori Jacoby; Ifat Yasin; Andrew J Oxenham; Shihab A Shamma
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-01-02       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  The advantage of ambiguity? Enhanced neural responses to multi-stable percepts correlate with the degree of perceived instability.

Authors:  Benjamin J Dyson
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2011-08-23       Impact factor: 3.169

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.