A Comparative View on the Perception of Mistuning: Constraints of the Auditory Periphery

  • Astrid Klinge
  • Naoya Itatani
  • Georg M. Klump
Conference paper


Harmonicity serves to group together frequencies from a single source to a perceived auditory object. The peripheral auditory system may exploit either spectral cues resulting in a specific spatial pattern of excitation or temporal cues that are due to the interaction of frequency components in the complex to evaluate whether a component does not belong to a harmonic complex, i.e., is mistuned. Which cues are useful for mistuning detection may depend on the anatomical and physiological constraints in the peripheral auditory system. Here we compare the perception of frequency shifts in harmonic complexes (i.e., mistuning) and in pure tones across species. Mongolian gerbils and birds are superior to humans in detecting small amounts of mistuning in sine phase harmonic complexes. This difference is reduced in the detection of mistuning in random phase harmonic complexes (but not in harmonic complexes with “frozen random phase”). Humans are superior to birds and gerbils in detecting pure-tone frequency shifts. The results suggest that species with a short cochlea and only few hair cells per critical band tend to rely more on temporal fine structure in the analysis of mistuning of components in harmonic complexes whereas excitation patterns may play a larger role in humans with a much longer cochlea. For the analysis of pure-tone frequency shifts, excitation patterns appear to play a more prominent role in all species. Exemplary neurophysiological data obtained in starlings support this view.


Mistuning detection Harmonic complex Mongoliangerbil Starling human Temporal processing 


  1. Buus S, Klump GM, Gleich O, Langemann U (1995) An excitation-pattern model for the starling (Sturnus vulgaris). J Acoust Soc Am 98:112–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. de Cheveigné A (1998) Cancellation model of pitch perception. J Acoust Soc Am 103:1261–1271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dooling RJ, Saunders JC (1975) Hearing in the parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus): absolute thresholds, critical ratios, frequency difference limens, and vocalizations. J Comp Physiol Psychol 88:1–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duifhuis H, Willems LF, Sluyter RJ (1982) Measurement of pitch in speech: an implementation of Goldstein’s theory of pitch perception. J Acoust Soc Am 71:1568–1580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fay RR (1992) Structure and function in sound discrimination among vertebrates. In: Webster D, Fay RR, Popper A (eds) The evolutionary biology of hearing. Springer, New York, pp 229–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gleich O, Manley GA (1988) Quantitative morphological analysis of the sensory epithelium of the starling and pigeon basilar papilla. Hear Res 34:69–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gockel HE, Carlyon RP, Plack CJ (2004) Across-frequency interference effects in fundamental frequency discrimination: questioning evidence for two pitch mechanisms. J Acoust Soc Am 116:1092–1104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldstein JL (1973) An optimum processor theory for the central formation of the pitch of complex tones. J Acoust Soc Am 54:1496–1516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenwood DD (1990) A cochlear frequency-position function for several species - 29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 87:2592–2605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartmann WM, McAdams S, Smith BK (1990) Hearing a mistuned harmonic in an otherwise complex tone. J Acoust Soc Am 88:1712–1724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Houtsma AJ, Smurzynski J (1990) Pitch identification and discrimination for complex tones with many harmonics. J Acoust Soc Am 87:304–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ISO 389-7 (1996) Acoustics-Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment - part 7: Reference threshold of hearing under free-field and diffuse-field listening conditionsGoogle Scholar
  13. Joris PX, Schreiner CE, Rees A (2004) Neural processing of amplitude-modulated sounds. Physiol Rev 84:541–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kittel M, Wagner E, Klump GM (2002) An estimate of the auditory-filter bandwidth in the Mongolian gerbil. Hear Res 164:69–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klinge A, Klump GM (2009) Frequency difference limens of pure tones and harmonics within complex stimuli in Mongolian gerbils and humans. J Acoust Soc Am 125:304–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klinge A, Klump GM (submitted) Mistuning detection and onset asynchrony in harmonic complexes in Mongolian gerbilsGoogle Scholar
  17. Klump GM, Groß S (submitted) Detection of frequency shifts and mistuning in complex tones in the European starlingGoogle Scholar
  18. Köppl C (1997) Phase locking to high frequencies in the auditory nerve and cochlear nucleus magnocellularis of the barn owl, Tyto alba. J Neurosci 17:3312–3321PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Licklider JC (1951) A duplex theory of pitch perception. Experientia 7:128–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lohr B, Dooling RJ (1998) Detection of changes in timbre and harmonicity in complex sounds by zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata) and budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). J Comp Psychol 112:36–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manley GA, Schwabedissen G, Gleich O (1993) Morphology of the basilar papilla of the budgerigar Melopsittacus undulatus. J Morphol 218:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meddis R, Hewitt MJ (1991a) Virtual pitch and phase sensitivity of a computer model of the auditory periphery. I: Pitch identification. J Acoust Soc Am 89:2866–2882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meddis R, Hewitt MJ (1991b) Virtual pitch and phase sensitivity of a computer model of the auditory periphery. II: phase sensitivity. J Acoust Soc Am 89:2883–2894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meddis R, O’Mard L (1997) A unitary model of pitch perception. J Acoust Soc Am 102:1811–1820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore BC (1973) Frequency difference limens for short-duration tones. J Acoust Soc Am 54:610–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore BC, Glasberg BR, Peters RW (1984) Frequency and intensity difference limens for harmonics within complex tones. J Acoust Soc Am 75:550–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moore BC, Peters RW, Glasberg BR (1985) Thresholds for the detection of inharmonicity in complex tones. J Acoust Soc Am 77:1861–1867PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moore BC, Glasberg BR, Peters RW (1986) Thresholds for hearing mistuned partials as separate tones in harmonic complexes. J Acoust Soc Am 80:479–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Müller M (1996) The cochlear place-frequency map of the adult and developing Mongolian gerbil. Hear Res 94:148–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Plassmann W, Peetz W, Schmidt M (1987) The cochlea in Gerbilline rodents. Brain Behav Evol 30:82–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pressnitzer D, Winter IM, Patterson RD (2000) The responses of single units in the ventral cochlear nucleus of the guinea pig to damped and ramped sinusoids. Hear Res 149:155–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryan A (1976) Hearing sensitivity of the Mongolian gerbil, Meriones unguiculatis. J Acoust Soc Am 59:1222–1226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sek A, Moore BC (1995) Frequency discrimination as a function of frequency, measured in several ways. J Acoust Soc Am 97:2479–2486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wright A, Davis A, Bredberg G, Ulehlova L, Spencer H (1987) Hair cell distributions in the normal human cochlea. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 444:1–48PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Animal Physiology and Behaviour GroupInstitute for Biology and Environmental SciencesOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations