Literature DB >> 23544676

Auditory stream segregation for alternating and synchronous tones.

Christophe Micheyl1, Coral Hanson1, Laurent Demany2, Shihab Shamma3, Andrew J Oxenham1.   

Abstract

Sound sequences, such as music, are usually organized perceptually into concurrent "streams." The mechanisms underlying this "auditory streaming" phenomenon are not completely known. The present study sought to test the hypothesis that synchrony limits listeners' ability to separate sound streams. To test this hypothesis, both perceptual-organization judgments and performance measures were used. In Experiment 1, listeners indicated whether they perceived sequences of alternating or synchronous tones as a single stream or as two streams. In Experiments 2 and 3, listeners detected rare changes in the intensity of "target" tones at one frequency in the presence of synchronous or asynchronous random-intensity "distractor" tones at another frequency. The results of these experiments showed that, for large frequency separations between the tones, the probability of perceiving two streams was lower on average for synchronous than for alternating tones, and that sensitivity to intensity changes in the target sequence was greater for asynchronous than for synchronous distractors. Overall, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that synchrony limits listeners' ability to form separate streams and/or to attend selectively to certain sounds in the presence of other sounds, even when the target and distractor sounds are well separated from each other in frequency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23544676      PMCID: PMC3973443          DOI: 10.1037/a0032241

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  43 in total

1.  Effects of frequency and level on auditory stream segregation.

Authors:  M M Rose; B C Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effects of location, frequency region, and time course of selective attention on auditory scene analysis.

Authors:  Rhodri Cusack; John Deeks; Genevieve Aikman; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  An oscillatory correlation model of auditory streaming.

Authors:  Deliang Wang; Peter Chang
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  Tuning properties of the auditory frequency-shift detectors.

Authors:  Laurent Demany; Daniel Pressnitzer; Catherine Semal
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Sequential stream segregation in the absence of spectral cues.

Authors:  J Vliegen; A J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  An objective measurement of the build-up of auditory streaming and of its modulation by attention.

Authors:  Sarah K Thompson; Robert P Carlyon; Rhodri Cusack
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Effects of attention and unilateral neglect on auditory stream segregation.

Authors:  R P Carlyon; R Cusack; J M Foxton; I H Robertson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Primitive stream segregation of tone sequences without differences in fundamental frequency or passband.

Authors:  Brian Roberts; Brian R Glasberg; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 9.  The cocktail party problem: what is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it?

Authors:  Mark A Bee; Christophe Micheyl
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.231

Review 10.  Properties of auditory stream formation.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore; Hedwig E Gockel
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 6.237

View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  Neural correlates of auditory scene analysis and perception.

Authors:  Kate L Christison-Lagay; Adam M Gifford; Yale E Cohen
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 2.997

2.  Neural correlates of attention and streaming in a perceptually multistable auditory illusion.

Authors:  Anahita H Mehta; Ifat Yasin; Andrew J Oxenham; Shihab Shamma
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 3.  Processing structure in language and music: a case for shared reliance on cognitive control.

Authors:  L Robert Slevc; Brooke M Okada
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-06

Review 4.  The role of temporal structure in the investigation of sensory memory, auditory scene analysis, and speech perception: a healthy-aging perspective.

Authors:  Johanna Maria Rimmele; Elyse Sussman; David Poeppel
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2014-06-20       Impact factor: 2.997

5.  Assessing the effects of temporal coherence on auditory stream formation through comodulation masking release.

Authors:  Simon Krogholt Christiansen; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  A Crucial Test of the Population Separation Model of Auditory Stream Segregation in Macaque Primary Auditory Cortex.

Authors:  Yonatan I Fishman; Mimi Kim; Mitchell Steinschneider
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 7.  How We Hear: The Perception and Neural Coding of Sound.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 24.137

8.  Binding the Acoustic Features of an Auditory Source through Temporal Coherence.

Authors:  Mohsen Rezaeizadeh; Shihab Shamma
Journal:  Cereb Cortex Commun       Date:  2021-10-06

Review 9.  Adaptive auditory computations.

Authors:  Shihab Shamma; Jonathan Fritz
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 6.627

10.  Segregation of complex acoustic scenes based on temporal coherence.

Authors:  Sundeep Teki; Maria Chait; Sukhbinder Kumar; Shihab Shamma; Timothy D Griffiths
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 8.140

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.