Instruments Unheard of: On the Role of Familiarity and Sound Source Categories in Timbre Perception
Musical timbre has traditionally been treated as a sensory phenomenon, that is, as a “surface feature” that resides in the musical moment. The role of familiarity with sound source categories and instrument families has remained unexplored. The current chapter takes a dedicatedly cognitive view on timbre and argues that long-term familiarity and knowledge about instrument categories affect even such supposedly low-level tasks as dissimilarity ratings. As a background, the chapter provides a conceptual framework for the notion of timbre, as well as an outline of basic results from timbre dissimilarity ratings and instrument identification. Results from a previous study on the role of sound source categories in timbre dissimilarity ratings are then discussed in depth (Siedenburg et al. in Frontiers in Psychology 6, 2016b). This study collected timbre dissimilarity ratings for tones from acoustic musical instruments as well as for novel, digitally transformed tones. The main pieces of evidence to be discussed come from rating asymmetries and a regression model. It is argued that timbre perception is characterized by an interplay of sensory and categorical representations, reflecting acoustic facets and learned sound source and instrument categories of musical instruments. Implications for the design of novel digital musical instrument design are being discussed.
KeywordsSound Source Musical Instrument Perceptual Representation Categorical Predictor Temporal Fine Structure
- Grey, J. M. (1975). An exploration of musical timbre (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). CCRMA, Stanford University.Google Scholar
- Hajda, J. M., Kendall, R. A., Carterette, E. C., & Harshberger, M. L. (1997). Methodological issues in timbre research. In I. Deliège & J. Sloboda (Eds.), Perception and cognition of music (pp. 253–306). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Huron, D. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Krumhansl, C. L. (1989). Why is musical timbre so hard to understand? In S. Nielzén & O. Olsson (Eds.), Structure and perception of electroacoustic sound and music (Vol. 846, pp. 43–53). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Excerpta Medica.Google Scholar
- Krumhansl, C. L. (1990). Cognitive foundations of musical pitch. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Pantev, C., Roberts, L. E., Schulz, M., Engelien, A., & Ross, B. (2001). Timbre-specific enhancement of auditory cortical representations in musicians. Neuro Report, 12(1), 169–174.Google Scholar
- Plomp, R. (1970). Timbre as a multidimensional attribute of complex tones. In R. Plomp & G. F. Smoorenburg (Eds.), Frequency analysis and periodicity detection in hearing (pp. 397–414). Leiden, The Netherlands: Suithoff.Google Scholar
- Siedenburg, K., Fujinaga, I., & McAdams, S. (2016a). A comparison of approaches to timbre descriptors in music information retrieval and music psychology. Journal of New Music Research (in press).Google Scholar
- Siedenburg, K., Jones-Mollerup, K., & McAdams, S. (2016b). Acoustic and categorical dissimilarity of musical timbre: Evidence from asymmetries between acoustic and chimeric sounds. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1977). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01977
- Siedenburg, K., & McAdams, S. (2016). The role of long-term familiarity and attentional maintenance in auditory short-term memory for timbre. Memory, published online. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2016.1197945.
- Srinivasan, A., Sullivan, D., & Fujinaga, I. (2002). Recognition of isolated instrument tones by conservatory students. In Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, Sydney (pp. 17–21), July 17–21.Google Scholar
- Wessel, D. L. (1973). Psychoacoustics and music: A report from Michigan State University. PACE: Bulletin of the Computer Arts Society, 30, 1–2.Google Scholar