Literature DB >> 4078176

Pitch discrimination of harmonic complex signals: residue pitch or multiple component discriminations?

A Faulkner.   

Abstract

Two models for pitch discrimination of harmonic complex sounds are discussed, a multiple-band probability summation model using comparisons among component frequencies, and a model in which residue pitches are compared. The second model is based on Goldstein's optimum-processor pitch theory [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 54, 1496-1516 (1973)], and is distinguished from the multiple-band model by an internal noise process. Pitch difference limens from 2I2AFC tasks show that when the test signals comprise corresponding harmonics, relative pitch difference limens are less than the smaller relative difference limens for the component frequencies, which is consistent with the multiple-band model. The absence of corresponding harmonics significantly reduces relative pitch discriminability; this effect supports the model on Goldstein's theory. It appears that residue pitch comparisons are not used for pitch discrimination between sounds with corresponding components; rather, comparisons based on residue pitch are only employed where there are no common resolved components in the signals to be discriminated.

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 4078176     DOI: 10.1121/1.392656

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


  9 in total

1.  Does fundamental-frequency discrimination measure virtual pitch discrimination?

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Kristin Divis; David M Wrobleski; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Comparing F0 discrimination in sequential and simultaneous conditions.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Further evidence that fundamental-frequency difference limens measure pitch discrimination.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Claire M Ryan; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Time-dependent discrimination advantages for harmonic sounds suggest efficient coding for memory.

Authors:  Malinda J McPherson; Josh H McDermott
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Symmetric interactions and interference between pitch and timbre.

Authors:  Emily J Allen; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Complex pitch perception mechanisms are shared by humans and a New World monkey.

Authors:  Xindong Song; Michael S Osmanski; Yueqi Guo; Xiaoqin Wang
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Pitch perception: dissociating frequency from fundamental-frequency discrimination.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham; Christophe Micheyl
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.622

8.  Diversity in pitch perception revealed by task dependence.

Authors:  Malinda J McPherson; Josh H McDermott
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2017-12-11

9.  Harmonicity aids hearing in noise.

Authors:  Malinda J McPherson; River C Grace; Josh H McDermott
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 2.157

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.