Literature DB >> 20000931

What makes a melody: The perceptual singularity of pitch sequences.

Marion Cousineau1, Laurent Demany, Daniel Pressnitzer.   

Abstract

This study investigated the ability of normal-hearing listeners to process random sequences of tones varying in either pitch or loudness. Same/different judgments were collected for pairs of sequences with a variable length (up to eight elements) and built from only two different elements, which were 200-ms harmonic complex tones. The two possible elements of all sequences had a fixed level of discriminability, corresponding to a d(') value of about 2, irrespective of the auditory dimension (pitch or loudness) along which they differed. This made it possible to assess sequence processing per se, independent of the accuracy of sound encoding. Pitch sequences were found to be processed more effectively than loudness sequences. However, that was the case only when the sequence elements included low-rank harmonics, which could be at least partially resolved in the auditory periphery. The effect of roving and transposition was also investigated. These manipulations reduced overall performance, especially transposition, but an advantage for pitch sequences was still observed. These results suggest that automatic frequency-shift detectors, available for pitch sequences but not loudness sequences, participate in the effective encoding of melodies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20000931     DOI: 10.1121/1.3257206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  10 in total

1.  Judgments of intensity for brief sequences.

Authors:  Frederick J Gallun
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Musical intervals and relative pitch: frequency resolution, not interval resolution, is special.

Authors:  Josh H McDermott; Michael V Keebler; Christophe Micheyl; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Impacts of age on memory for auditory intensity.

Authors:  Frederick J Gallun; Anna C Diedesch; Robertson Beasley
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Simplified expressions of the subtracted Kramers-Kronig relations using the expanded forms applied to ultrasonic power-law systems.

Authors:  Joel Mobley
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Is there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?

Authors:  Pieter J Venter; Johan J Hanekom
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-19

6.  Congenital amusia: a cognitive disorder limited to resolved harmonics and with no peripheral basis.

Authors:  Marion Cousineau; Andrew J Oxenham; Isabelle Peretz
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 3.139

7.  Processing pitch in a nonhuman mammal (Chinchilla laniger).

Authors:  William P Shofner; Megan Chaney
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 2.231

8.  Informational Masking in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners Measured in a Nonspeech Pattern Identification Task.

Authors:  Elin Roverud; Virginia Best; Christine R Mason; Jayaganesh Swaminathan; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  Across-species differences in pitch perception are consistent with differences in cochlear filtering.

Authors:  Josh H McDermott; Andrew J King; Kerry Mm Walker; Ray Gonzalez; Joe Z Kang
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 8.140

10.  What is a melody? On the relationship between pitch and brightness of timbre.

Authors:  Marion Cousineau; Samuele Carcagno; Laurent Demany; Daniel Pressnitzer
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2014-01-17
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.