| Literature DB >> 24466328 |
Valeria C Caruso1, Evan Balaban2.
Abstract
Pitch and timbre perception are both based on the frequency content of sound, but previous perceptual experiments have disagreed about whether these two dimensions are processed independently from each other. We tested the interaction of pitch and timbre variations using sequential comparisons of sound pairs. Listeners judged whether two sequential sounds were identical along the dimension of either pitch or timbre, while the perceptual distances along both dimensions were parametrically manipulated. Pitch and timbre variations perceptually interfered with each other and the degree of interference was modulated by the magnitude of changes along the un-attended dimension. These results show that pitch and timbre are not orthogonal to each other when both are assessed with parametrically controlled variations.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24466328 PMCID: PMC3897753 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087065
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Intra-pair pitch and timbre distances.
(A) attend-timbre condition, (B) attend-pitch condition. For each pair of sounds the timbre and pitch variations are indicated in the graphs. For each single sound in the pairs, pitch is related to the fundamental frequency, f0, and timbre is related to the width of the Gaussian filter in the spectrum, σk (Equation1). The intra-pair distances in (A), attend-timbre condition, are obtained with sounds parameters: f0 = 300, 318, 378 Hz, σk = 16.9, 25.1, 32.6, 48 Hz. The intra-pair distances in (B), attend-pitch condition, are obtained with sounds parameters: f0 = 318, 337, 357, 378 Hz, σk = 16.9, 25.1, 48 Hz.
Mean hit rate and false alarm rates for all timbre and pitch distances in the two conditions.
| Condition | Distances along the unattended dimension | Hits | FA 1 t-step | FA 2 t-steps | FA 3 t-steps |
| Attend-timbre | Same distance | 0.96 (0.01) | 0.57 (0.02) | 0.09 (0.02) | 0.03 (0.01) |
| 1 semitone apart | 0.86 (0.02) | 0.44 (0.02) | 0.07 (0.01) | 0.03 (0.01) | |
| 3 semitone apart | 0.71 (0.03) | 0.41 (0.02) | 0.10 (0.02) | 0.01 (0.004) | |
| 4 semitone apart | 0.63 (0.03) | 0.37 (0.02) | 0.09 (0.01) | 0.02 (0.01) | |
| Attend-pitch | Same distance | 0.98 (0.01) | 0.08 (0.02) | 0.02 (0.06) | 0.01 (0.07) |
| 1 t-step apart | 0.95 (0.04) | 0.05 (0.02) | 0.02 (0.03) | 0.02 (0.03) | |
| 2 t-steps apart | 0.81 (0.01) | 0.10 (0.02) | 0.05 (0.02) | 0.02 (0.03) | |
| 3 t-steps apart | 0.75 (0.004) | 0.10 (0.01) | 0.07 (0.01) | 0.02 (0.01) |
(SE in parentheses).
Figure 2Average sensitivity as a function of pitch and timbre variations.
Values represent average d’ score (±SE) across subjects, for each intra-pair distance along the attended dimension (1step circle, 2 steps diamond or 3 steps triangle) and un-attended dimension (on the x-axis). (A) attend-timbre condition, n = 57 for each data point; (B) attend-pitch condition, n = 21 for each data point. ρ indicates the Spearman rank correlations coefficient between the d’ scores and the variations along the un-attended dimension, p indicates the p-values for the significance test.
Lilliefors normality test p-values for the d’ scores in all conditions.
| Condition | Distances along theunattended dimension | 1 step along theattended dimension | 2 steps along theattended dimension | 3 steps along theattended dimension |
| Attend-timbre | Same distance | 0.500 | 0.055 | 0.001 |
| 1 semitone apart | 0.013 | 0.113 | 0.005 | |
| 3 semitone apart | 0.005 | 0.351 | 0.038 | |
| 4 semitone apart | 0.016 | 0.222 | 0.088 | |
| Attend-pitch | Same distance | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 1 t-step apart | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 | |
| 2 t-steps apart | 0.088 | 0.032 | 0.001 | |
| 3 t-steps apart | 0.349 | 0.183 | 0.365 |
p-values <0.05 indicate a non-normal distribution.
No consistent directional effects of timbre on pure tone matching.
| Subject | f0 = 300 Hz | f0 = 318 Hz | f0 = 357 Hz | f0 = 378 Hz |
| S1 | 0.02 | 0.76 | 0.27 | 0.82 |
| S2 | 0.17 | 0.71 | 0.14 | 0.57 |
| S3 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.97 | 0.08 |
| S4 | 0.47 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.14 |
| S5 | 0.57 | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.15 |
| S6 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.58 | 0.08 |
| S7 | 0.31 | 0.19 | 0.57 | 0.31 |
| S8 | 0.56 | 0.92 | 0.16 | 0.05 |
| S9 | 0.10 | 0.42 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| S10 | 0.24 | 0.86 | 0.98 | 0.75 |
Note: The table shows uncorrected p-values for the slope of individual regression lines (matched tones regressed on timbre levels for each fundamental frequency f0). p-values >0.05 mean that the hypothesis of equal slopes cannot be rejected. Uncorrected p-values are shown in this instance because these are the more conservative alternative when making the argument of no consistent directional effects. S1–10 indicates subjects from 1 to 10.
uncorrected p-value <0.05.
uncorrected p-value <0.01.
No consistent effect of timbre on the variability of pure tone matching.
| Subject | f0 = 300 Hz | f0 = 318 Hz | f0 = 357 Hz | f0 = 378 Hz |
| S1 | 0.71 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.94 |
| S2 | 0.33 | 0.77 | 0.16 | 0.39 |
| S3 | 0.54 | 0.32 | 0.07 | 0.62 |
| S4 | 0.52 | 0.83 | 0.51 | 0.07 |
| S5 | 0.91 | 0.29 | 0.83 | 0.05 |
| S6 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.09 | 0.60 |
| S7 | 0.26 | 0.46 | 0.58 | 0.43 |
| S8 | 0.74 | 0.79 | 0.06 | 0.13 |
| S9 | 0.70 | 0.40 | 0.02 | 0.41 |
| S10 | 0.47 | 0.88 | 0.75 | 0.53 |
Note: The table shows uncorrected p-values for the slopes of the individual regressions of the standard deviation of the matched tones on timbre levels for each fundamental frequency f0. Uncorrected p-values are shown in this instance because these are the more conservative alternative when making the argument of no consistent directional effects. p-values >0.05 mean that the hypothesis of equal slopes cannot be rejected. S1–10 indicates subjects from 1 to 10.
uncorrected p-value <0.05.