The effect of marker variability on the discrimination of temporal intervals

Abstract

This research investigates the human observer's ability to discriminate between the durations of two silent intervals, each interval preceded and followed by noise bursts called markers.The markers are separated· by T or T +~T' msec and T ranges from 0.3 to 1,000 msec.T is defined as that value of~T' for which the probability of discriminating T from T + AT' is 0.75. We compared the value of AT for conditions in which the markers were fixed in amplitude and duration with conditions in which the marker amplitudes and durations were randomly chosen.~T increased by as much as a factor of 4 when the amplitude and duration of the markers were randomized. The performance decrement was primarily due to randomizing the first marker duration.Models of duration discrimination relate discriminability to the duration of the stimuli presented. Stimuli that differ in duration, however, differ in other ways as well, and the idea that it is only their temporal extent which provides a discrimination cue is open to question. In a recent paper, Abel (1972) investigated the human observer's ability to discriminate between the durations of two silent intervals, each interval preceded and followed by noise bursts called markers. This paradigm is an important one, because the silent intervals differ in temporal extent only. There are no cues related to the total energy or to the energy spectrum of the stimuli. It is therefore of particular interest whether or not discriminability is independent of marker amplitude and duration in this paradigm.In Abel's paradigm, the marker amplitude and duration were fixed from trial to trial and varied between blocks. For these fixed markers, discrimination was affected by marker amplitude indicating that some nontemporal cue might be used (Allan & Kristofferson, 1974). In the present experiment, we investigate an extreme case of marker variability. In our work, the parameters of each of the four markers bounding the two intervals are chosen randomly and independently. For large marker variability, we reopen the question of whether it is only the physical duration of the silent temporal interval which provides the discrimination cue. METHODS SubjectsTwo undergraduates at Arizona State University were paid to participate. The author was also a subject. Two of the three This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health and in part by a faculty research award from the City University of New York. subjects were practiced listeners with at least 3 years of experience in psychoacoustic experiments. ApparatusThe durations of the noises and the gap between them were controlled by a PDP-IS computer. The noise was generated by a random noise generator (General Radio Model 1383), gated, filtered (0 to 20 kHz; Krohnhite Model 3SS0R), and then served as input to TDH-39 headphones. Two observers were run simultaneously in two double-walled lAC chambers. ProeedureThe data were collected using a two-interval forced-choice procedure. A trial began with a flash of a warning light...

Abnormal pitch—time interference in congenital amusia: Evidence from an implicit test

“…Timbre judgments are typically made more quickly when participants respond to high-frequency tones with a key located high condition would be due to pitch uncertainty. This is in line with several studies showing that temporal judgments are affected by randomizing marker parameters (Grondin & Rousseau, 1991;Penner, 1976).…”

Effects of temporal shapes of sound markers on the perception of interonset time intervals

“…However, we could not relate the results directly to rhythm perception and human auditory communication, for the following reasons. Most of the studies utilizing single time intervals had focused mainly on discrimination paradigms, and not on the subjective duration itself (Divenyi & Sachs, 1978;Grondin et al, 2005;Penner, 1976;Rammsayer & Leutner, 1996). This was in contrast with the fact that the studies utilizing multiple time intervals had often taken up subjective duration directly, with a clear interest in rhythm in music (e.g., Hasuo et al, 2011;Repp & Marcus, 2010;Schubert & Fabian, 2001;Yamashita & Nakajima, 1999).…”

“…Previous research tested how the durations of events (i.e., sound markers) influenced the perception of time intervals in between events, either by utilizing single time intervals marked by two events (Divenyi & Sachs, 1978;Grondin, Ivry, Franz, Perreault, & Metthe, 1996;Grondin, Roussel, Gamache, Roy, & Ouellet, 2005;Penner, 1976;Rammsayer & Leutner, 1996;Woodrow, 1928) or by utilizing multiple time intervals marked by three or more events (Handel, 1993;Hasuo, Nakajima, & Hirose, 2011;Repp & Marcus, 2010;Schubert & Fabian, 2001;Yamashita & Nakajima, 1999). The results of these studies showed that marker duration could influence the perception of time intervals.…”

Duration discrimination of empty time intervals marked by intermodal pulses

“…541 There seems to exist a general agreement on the fact that when an observer is asked to discriminate between intervals of short duration, his performance is little affected by such stimulus characteristics as intensity, frequency, and bandwidth (Allan, 1979). More specifically, if the discrimination is performed on empty intervals marked by short auditory pulses, numerous studies have shown that, for intervals longer than 100 msec, performance is not sensitive to variations in marker intensity (Abel, 1972;Carbotte & Kristofferson, 1973;Divenyi& Danner, 1977;Penner, 1976), frequency or spectrum (Divenyi & Danner, 1977;Divenyi & Sachs, 1978), and duration (Abel, 1972;Carbotte & Kristofferson, 1973;Penner, 1976). Moreover, within the range of 0-100 msec, Nilsson (1969) and Oostenbrug, Horst, and Kniper (1978) have shown the performance to be relatively insensitive to changes in the energy of light pulse markers.…”