Abstract
The representation of complex sounds was examined by comparing both behavioral and event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to the change or repetition of fundamental frequency (f 0) and harmonicity. In the pitch task, participants were asked to categorize the incoming stimulus as either low or high, regardless of harmonicity, and in the harmonicity task, participants indicated whether the stimulus was tuned or mistuned, regardless of pitch. Over three experiments, participants were faster in responding to pitch than to harmonicity. As a result of this asymmetry, behavioral and ERP data showed that irrelevant changes in harmonicity had little impact on performance during the pitch task, whereas harmonicity judgments were impeded by irrelevant changes in f 0. These data are consistent with both general horse-race accounts of processing and specific accounts of mistuning detection that posit prior f 0 registration. In addition, ERP components N2 and P3 were modulated by both intertrial contingency and task instructions, revealing the further influence of top-down mechanisms on concurrent sound segregation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alain, C. (2007). Breaking the wave: Effects of attention and learning on concurrent sound perception. Hearing Research, 229, 225–236.
Alain, C., Arnott, S. R., & Picton, T. W. (2001). Bottom-up and top-down influences on auditory scene analysis: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 1072–1089.
Alain, C., & Izenberg, A. (2003). Effects of attentional load on auditory scene analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 1063–1073.
Alain, C., Schuler, B. M., & McDonald, K. L. (2002). Neural activity associated with distinguishing concurrent auditory objects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 990–995.
Bertelson, P. (1961). Sequential redundancy and speed in a serial two-choice responding task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 90–102.
Boutros, N. N., Belger, A., Campbell, D., D’Souza, C., & Krystal, J. (1998). Comparison of four components of sensory gating in schizophrenia and normal subjects: A preliminary report. Psychiatry Research, 88, 119–130.
Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cusack, R., Deeks, J., Aikman, G., & Carlyon, R. P. (2004). Effects of location, frequency region, and time course of selective attention on auditory scene analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 643–656.
Darwin, C. J., & Ciocca, V. (1992). Grouping in pitch perception: Effects of onset asynchrony and ear of presentation of a mistuned component. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 3381–3390.
Darwin, C. J., Ciocca, V., & Sandell, G. J. (1994). Effects of frequency and amplitude modulation on the pitch of a complex tone with a mistuned harmonic. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 2631–2636.
Darwin, C. J., Hukin, R. W., & Al-Khatib, B. Y. (1995). Grouping in pitch perception: Evidence for sequential constraints. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98, 880–885.
Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. H. (1988). Precommentary: Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 11, 355–435.
Duifhuis, H., Willems, L. F., & Sluyter, R. J. (1982). Measurement of pitch in speech: An implementation of Goldstein’s theory of pitch perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71, 1568–1580.
Dyson, B. J. (in press). Perceptual organisation. In C. Plack (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of auditory science: Auditory perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dyson, B. J., & Alain, C. (2004). Representation of concurrent auditory objects in primary auditory cortex. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 280–289.
Dyson, B. J., & Alain, C. (2008). Is a change as good with a rest? Task dependent effects of inter-trial contingency on concurrent sound segregation. Brain Research, 1189, 135–144.
Dyson, B. J., Alain, C., & He, Y. (2005a). Effect of visual attentional load on auditory scene analysis. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 319–338.
Dyson, B. J., Alain, C., & He, Y. (2005b). I’ve heard it all before: Perceptual invariance represented by early cortical auditory evoked responses. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 457–460.
Dyson, B. J., & Quinlan, P. T. (2004). Stimulus processing constraints in audition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 1117–1131.
Fruhstorfer, H., Soveri, P., & Järvilehto, T. (1970). Short-term habituation of the auditory evoked response in man. Electroen cephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology, 28, 153–161.
Garner, W. R. (1976). Interaction of stimulus dimensions in concept and choice processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 98–123.
Haenschel, C., Vernon, D. J., Dwivedi, P., Gruzelier, J. H., & Baldeweg, T. (2005). Event-related brain potential correlates of human auditory sensory memory-trace formation. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 10494–10501.
Hartmann, W. M. (1988). Pitch perception and the segregation and the integration of auditory entities. In G. M. Edelman, W. E. Gall, & W. M. Cowan (Eds.), Auditory function: Neurobiological bases of hearing (pp. 623–645). New York: Wiley.
Hohnsbein, J., Falkenstein, M., & Hoormann, J. (1995). Effects of attention and time-pressure on P300 subcomponents and implications for mental workload research. Biological Psychology, 40, 73–81.
Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 188–196.
Jolicoeur, P. (1999). Concurrent response-selection demands modulate the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1097–1113.
Kirby, N. (1980). Sequential effects in choice reaction time. In A. T. Welford (Ed.), Reaction times (pp. 129–172). London: Academic Press.
Kornblum, S. (1973). Sequential effects in choice reaction time: A tutorial review. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance IV (pp. 259–288). New York: Academic Press.
Kruger, L. E., & Shapiro, R. G. (1981). Intertrial effects of same—different judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 241–265.
Kubovy, M. (1981). Concurrent-pitch segregation and that theory of indispensable attributes. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 55–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kubovy, M., & Van Valkenburg, D. (2001). Auditory and visual objects. Cognition, 80, 97–126.
Lin, J.-Y., & Hartmann, W. M. (1998). The pitch of a mistuned harmonic: Evidence for a template model. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, 2608–2617.
McDonald, K. L., & Alain, C. (2005). Contribution of harmonicity and location to auditory object formation in free field: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1593–1604.
Melara, R. D., & Mounts, J. R. W. (1993). Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice. Memory & Cognition, 21, 627–645.
Mondor, T. A., Zatorre, R. J., & Terrio, N. A. (1998). Constraints on the selection of auditory information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 66–79.
Moore, B. C. J., Glasberg, B. R., & Peters, R. W. (1986). Thresholds for hearing mistuned partials as separate tones in harmonic complexes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, 479–483.
Mordkoff, J. T., & Yantis, S. (1991). An interactive race model of divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 17, 520–538.
Mordkoff, J. T., Yantis, S., & Egeth, H. E. (1990). Detecting conjunctions of color and form in parallel. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 157–168.
Olivers, C. N. L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2003). Attentional guidance by salient feature singletons depends on intertrial contingencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 650–657.
Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: 2. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 33–48.
Patel, S. H., & Azzam, P. N. (2005). Characterization of N200 and P300: Selected studies of the event-related potential. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 2, 147–154.
Picton, T. W. (1992). The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 9, 456–479.
Picton, T. W., & Fitzgerald, P. G. (1983). A general description of the human auditory evoked potentials. In E. J. Moore (Ed.), Bases of auditory brain-stem evoked responses (pp. 141–156). New York: Grune & Stratton.
Picton, T. W., van Roon, P., Armilio, M. L., Berg, P., Ille, N., & Scherg, M. (2000). The correction of ocular artifacts: A topographic perspective. Clinical Neurophysiology, 111, 53–65.
Polich, J., & Kok, A. (1995). Cognitive and biological determinants of P300: An integrative review. Biological Psychology, 41, 103–146.
Purves, D., Augustine, G. J., Fitzpatrick, D., Katz, L. C., LaMantia, A. S., & McNamara, J. O. (Eds.) (1997). Neuroscience. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Quinlan, P. T. (1999). Sequential effects in auditory choice reaction time tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 297–303.
Rabbitt, P. (1992). Many happy repetitions: A celebration of the “Berelson Repetition Effect,” 1961–1991. In J. Alegria, D. Holender, J. Junca de Morais, & M. Radeau (Eds.), Analytic approaches to human cognition (pp. 313–330). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Reinke, K. S., He, Y., Wang, C., & Alain, C. (2003). Perceptual learning modulates sensory evoked response during vowel segregation. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 781–791.
Ritter, W., Simson, R., Vaughan, H. G., Jr., & Macht, M. (1982). Manipulation of event-related potential manifestations of information processing stages. Science, 218, 909–911.
Roberts, B., & Holmes, S. D. (2006). Grouping and the pitch of a mistuned fundamental component: Effects of applying simultaneous multiple mistunings to the other harmonics. Hearing Research, 222, 79–88.
Scheffers, M. T. M. (1983). Simulation of auditory analysis of pitch: An elaboration on the DWS pitch meter. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 74, 1716–1725.
Soetens, E., Boer, L. C., & Hueting, J. E. (1985). Expectancy or automatic facilitation? Separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 11, 598–616.
Sommer, W., Leuthold, H., & Soetens, E. (1999). Covert signs of expectancy in serial reaction time tasks revealed by event-related potentials. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 342–353.
Sommer, W., Matt, J., & Leuthold, H. (1990). Consciousness of attention and expectancy as reflected in event-related potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 902–915.
van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631–650.
Winer, B. J. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 13–73). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Woods, D. L., Alain, C., Diaz, R., Rhodes, D., & Ogawa, K. H. (2001). Location and frequency cues in auditory selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 65–74.
Woods, D. L., & Elmasian, R. (1986). The habituation of event-related potential to speech sounds and tones. Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology, 76, 447–459.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dyson, B.J., Alain, C. It all sounds the same to me: Sequential ERP and behavioral effects during pitch and harmonicity judgments. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 8, 329–343 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.3.329
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.3.329