Memory for pitch versus memory for loudness

Clément, Sylvain; Demany, Laurent; Semal, Catherine

doi:10.1121/1.428106

Cited by 73 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5. In this figure, the difference limen increases with the interstimulus interval from 0.6 dB at an interval of 0.5 s to 1.6 dB at an interval of 64 s. This tendency was also observed in a previous study [8]. In our study, furthermore, the tendency becomes gentler as the interstimulus interval increases.…”

Section: Loudness Difference Limensupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Jesteadt (1977) showed the frequency and loudness dependence of the difference limen for pure tones [7]. Clement et al (1999) studied the relationship between the difference limen and the interstimulus interval [8]. However, few evaluated the difference limen taking into account the effect of the presentation order of sound stimuli and the dependence of the limen on the interstimulus interval from a view point of the relationship between sound detection and memory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interstimulus interval dependence of the loudness difference limen obtained by taking into account the presentation order effect

Hasegawa

Kasuga

2004

Acoust. Sci. & Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the interstimulus interval dependence of the loudness difference limen obtained by taking into account the presentation order effect of sound stimuli. A paired comparison experiment of pure-tone sounds was carried out at different interstimulus intervals, and the experimental data were analyzed, taking into account the presentation order effect. The following two characteristic effects were obtained. First, the difference limen changed depending on the interstimulus interval. A logarithmic relation was found between the difference limen and the interstimulus interval. The difference limen was about 0.6 to 1.6 dB at an interval of 0.5 to 64 s. Second, the order effect also changed depending on the interstimulus interval. The sound presented first was perceived as being louder than the sound presented second at an interval of 0.5 to 4 s, and the sound presented second was perceived as being louder than the sound presented first at an interval of 16 to 64 s, although the sounds were of the same sound pressure level. When the interval was 8 s, the sound presented first was perceived as being as loud as the sound presented second. Based on the above findings, we estimated the region where the difference in loudness could not be detected. The obtained results show that the region is not symmetrical for the upper and lower boundary levels. BACKGROUNDSubjective evaluation tests of loudness are frequently performed not only in psychoacoustics studies but also in various product development tests. However, if the accuracy of a subjective evaluation test is low, the reliability of the data will be compromised, and the results will be inaccurate. It is, therefore, very important that evaluation tests be carried out accurately. To do that, we must find a suitable method and environment. It is widely recognized that the constant method [1][2][3][4], in which sound stimuli are presented randomly and there is a minimal load on the subjects, is one of the most accurate methods. The constant method is used for paired comparisons and it has two important restrictions: do not change any parameters except for the evaluation target, and do not spend a lot of time for the comparison interval to do not forget the first sound. However, changing the target parameters for a very complex or big evaluation target is still a very timeconsuming process. In this situation, we need to know how long the subject can retain information about the sound presented in the experiment, and how accurately subjects can detect changes in the sound.A number of studies on the loudness difference limen have been carried out. For example, Riesz (1928) undertook basic research on the difference limen by using modulation noises [5]. Miller (1947) investigated the difference limen for white noises [6]. Jesteadt (1977) showed the frequency and loudness dependence of the difference limen for pure tones [7]. Clement et al. (1999) studied the relationship between the difference limen and the interstimulus interval [8]. However, few eva...

show abstract

Section: Loudness Difference Limensupporting

confidence: 73%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interstimulus interval dependence of the loudness difference limen obtained by taking into account the presentation order effect

Hasegawa

Kasuga

2004

Acoust. Sci. & Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, whereas ISI T1-T2 was always short (300 msec, at most) in Experiments 1 and 2, this interval was here either short again or much longer: Its two possible values were 300 msec and 4 sec. Previous research has shown that the frequency discrimination of two pure tones is markedly poorer for an ISI of 4 sec than for an ISI of 300 msec, especially when the frequencies of the tones vary widely from trial to trial (Clé-ment, Demany, & Semal, 1999;Harris, 1952). For a 4-sec ISI, it is clear that discrimination accuracy is limited much more by memory noise than by sensory noise.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Pitch perception and retention: Two cumulative benefits of selective attention

Demany¹,

Montandon²,

Semal³

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By presenting, before a "chord" of three pure tones with remote frequencies, a tone relatively close in frequency to one component (T1) of the chord, one can direct the listener's attention onto T1 within the chord. In the first part of the present study, it was found that this increases the accuracy with which the pitch of T1 is perceived. The attentional cue improved the discrimination between the frequency of T1 and that of another tone (T2) presented immediately after the chord or very shortly (300 msec) after it. No improvement was found when T1 was presented alone instead of within a chord. A subsequent experiment, in which the chord and T2 were separated by either 300 msec or 4 sec, indicated that the attentional cue improved not only the perception, but also the memorization of the pitch of T1 (especially when T1 was the intermediate component of the chord). It is argued that the positive effect of attention on memory took place when the pitch percept was encoded into memory, rather than after the formation of the pitch memory trace.

show abstract

“…1 With respect to the temporal relations depicted in Figure 4, this implies that response code activation started earlier, in our experiment, in the loudness task than it did in the pitch task. On top of that, there is evidence that loudness codes decay more quickly than pitch codes (Clement, Demany, & Semal, 1999), which would further work against the integration of loudness and response. We can thus conclude that the code overlap principle accounts for both the observation that task relevance did not affect stimulus integration and the finding that it did affect stimulus-response integration.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory event files: Integrating auditory perception and action planning

Zmigrod

Hommel

2009

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The features of perceived objects are processed in distinct neural pathways, which call for mechanisms that integrate the distributed information into coherent representations (the binding problem). Recent studies of sequential effects have demonstrated feature binding not only in perception, but also across (visual) perception and action planning. We investigated whether comparable effects can be obtained in and across auditory perception and action. The results from two experiments revealed effects indicative of spontaneous integration of auditory features (pitch and loudness, pitch and location), as well as evidence for audio-manual stimulus-response integration. Even though integration takes place spontaneously, features related to task-relevant stimulus or response dimensions are more likely to be integrated. Moreover, integration seems to follow a temporal overlap principle, with features coded close in time being more likely to be bound together. Taken altogether, the findings are consistent with the idea of episodic event files integrating perception and action plans.

show abstract

Memory for pitch versus memory for loudness

Cited by 73 publications

References 26 publications

Interstimulus interval dependence of the loudness difference limen obtained by taking into account the presentation order effect

Interstimulus interval dependence of the loudness difference limen obtained by taking into account the presentation order effect

Pitch perception and retention: Two cumulative benefits of selective attention

Auditory event files: Integrating auditory perception and action planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About