Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
PRELIMINARY PSYCHOACOUSTIC INVESTIGATION OF THE SIAM PROCEDURE TO MEASURE FREQUENCY DIFFERENCE LIMENS
1
Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Auburn University, United States
2
Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Cincinnati, United States
3
Communication Sciences and Disorders, Ohio University, United States
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
Publication date: 2022-03-01
Corresponding author
Aurora J. Weaver
Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Auburn University, 1199 Haley Center, 36849, Auburn, United States
Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Auburn University, 1199 Haley Center, 36849, Auburn, United States
J Hear Sci 2021;11(4):55-71
KEYWORDS
frequency difference limenjust noticeable differenceauditory working memorysingle-interval adjustment matrixmethod of constant stimuli
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The study investigated the cause of varying estimates of frequency difference limens (DLs) in delayed comparison tasks involving pitch retention in auditory working memory (AWM). Using procedures adapted from the method of constant stimuli (MCS) and the single-interval adjustment matrix (SIAM), we sought to determine via 3 experiments whether the disparity in frequency DLs obtained using each procedure was due to the method of measurement (Experiment 1), the response format (Experiment 2), or performance feedback (Experiment 3).
Material and methods:
Five adults (ages 21 to 38 years) with hearing within normal limits participated in Experiments 1 and 2, and seven adults (ages 20 to 30 years) with hearing within normal limits participated in Experiment 3. Delayed comparison tasks were used to evaluate frequency DLs under SIAM and MCS.
Results:
Our preliminary results suggest that DL values for pitch discrimination are more influenced by response format than by the measurement procedure or performance feedback. Regardless of the method used, DL values were greater in the condition containing intervening stimuli compared to the condition lacking intervening stimuli.
Conclusions:
Preliminary findings suggest there is consistency in the listener’s adopted criterion (i.e., judgment rationale) across the psychoacoustic methods investigated. Performance measures suggest that SIAM is as accurate as MCS, but it is noteworthy that two SIAM measurement runs using the "same/different" response format is more efficient than four runs with MCS. Future application of the SIAM procedure for measuring DL values might, with larger sample sizes, identify additional factors that contribute to performance and the listener’s adopted criterion, since data collection time is appreciably shorter with SIAM.
The study investigated the cause of varying estimates of frequency difference limens (DLs) in delayed comparison tasks involving pitch retention in auditory working memory (AWM). Using procedures adapted from the method of constant stimuli (MCS) and the single-interval adjustment matrix (SIAM), we sought to determine via 3 experiments whether the disparity in frequency DLs obtained using each procedure was due to the method of measurement (Experiment 1), the response format (Experiment 2), or performance feedback (Experiment 3).
Material and methods:
Five adults (ages 21 to 38 years) with hearing within normal limits participated in Experiments 1 and 2, and seven adults (ages 20 to 30 years) with hearing within normal limits participated in Experiment 3. Delayed comparison tasks were used to evaluate frequency DLs under SIAM and MCS.
Results:
Our preliminary results suggest that DL values for pitch discrimination are more influenced by response format than by the measurement procedure or performance feedback. Regardless of the method used, DL values were greater in the condition containing intervening stimuli compared to the condition lacking intervening stimuli.
Conclusions:
Preliminary findings suggest there is consistency in the listener’s adopted criterion (i.e., judgment rationale) across the psychoacoustic methods investigated. Performance measures suggest that SIAM is as accurate as MCS, but it is noteworthy that two SIAM measurement runs using the "same/different" response format is more efficient than four runs with MCS. Future application of the SIAM procedure for measuring DL values might, with larger sample sizes, identify additional factors that contribute to performance and the listener’s adopted criterion, since data collection time is appreciably shorter with SIAM.
REFERENCES (47)
1.
Barzelay O, Furst M, Barak O. A new approach to model pitch perception using sparse coding. PLoS Comp Biol, 2017;13(1): e1005338.
2.
Plack CJ, Oxenham AJ, Fay RR. Pitch: Neural coding and perception. Springer, 2006.
3.
Deutsch D. Mapping of interactions in the pitch memory store. Science, 1972; 175(4025): 1020–22.
4.
Cowan N. Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. Psych Bull, 1988; 104(2): 163.
5.
Cowan N. Attention and Memory: An integrated framework. Oxford University Press, 1998.
6.
Oberfeld D, Franke T. Evaluating the robustness of repeated measures analyses: the case of small sample sizes and nonnormal data. Behav Res Meth, 2013; 45(3): 792–812.
7.
Kaernbach C. A single‐interval adjustment‐matrix (SIAM) procedure for unbiased adaptive testing. J Acoust Soc Am, 1990; 88(6): 2645–55.
8.
Deutsch D, Feroe J. Disinhibition in pitch memory. Percep Psychophys, 1975; 17(3): 320–24.
9.
Schellenberg EG, Trehub SE. Frequency ratios and the discrimination of pure tone sequences. Percep Psychophys, 1994; 56(4): 472–78.
10.
Schellenberg EG, Trehub SE. Children’s discrimination of melodic intervals. Devel Psych, 1996; 32(6): 1039.
11.
Ries DT, DiGiovanni JJ. Release from interference in auditory working memory for pitch. Hear Res, 2007; 230(1-2): 64–72.
12.
Ries DT, DiGiovanni JJ. Effects of recurrent tonal information on auditory working memory for pitch. Hear Res, 2009; 255(1-2): 14-21.
13.
Macmillan NA, Creelman CD. Detection Theory: A user’s guide. Psychology Press, 2004.
14.
Deutsch D. Dislocation of tones in a musical sequence: a memory illusion. Nature, 1970; 226(5242): 286–86.
15.
Deutsch D. Tones and numbers: specificity of interference in immediate memory. Science, 1970; 168(3939): 1604–05.
16.
Massaro DW. Retroactive interference in short-term recognition memory for pitch. J Exp Psychol, 1970; 83(1p1): 32.
18.
König E. Effect of time on pitch discrimination thresholds under several psychophysical procedures; comparison with intensity discrimination thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am, 1957; 29(5): 606–12.
20.
Ross D, Olson IR, Gore JC. Absolute pitch does not depend on early musical training. Ann NY Acad Sci, 2003; 999(1): 522–26.
21.
Ross D, Olson IR, Marks LE, Gore JC. A nonmusical paradigm for identifying absolute pitch possessors. J Acoust Soc Am, 2004; 116(3): 1793–99.
22.
Wichmann FA, Hill NJ. The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percep Psychophys, 2001; 63(8): 1293–313.
23.
Levitt H. Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 1971; 49(2B): 467–77.
24.
Gelfand SA. Hearing: An introduction to psychological and physiological acoustics: CRC Press, 2017.
25.
Wier CC, Jesteadt W, Green DM. Frequency discrimination as a function of frequency and sensation level. J Acoust Soc Am, 1977; 61(1): 178–84.
27.
Brophy AL. Alternatives to a table of criterion values in signal detection theory. Behav Res Meth Instr Comput, 1986; 18(3): 285–86.
28.
MacMillian N, Creelman C. Characteristics of detection theory, threshold theory, and “nonparametric” indexes. Psychol Bull 1990;107: 401–13.
30.
Lynn SK, Barrett LF. “Utilizing” signal detection theory. Psychol Sci, 2014; 25(9): 1663–73.
31.
Stanislaw H, Todorov N. Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behav Res Meth Instr Comput, 1999; 31(1): 137–49.
32.
Furnham A. Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Pers Individ Diff, 1986; 7(3): 385–400.
33.
Wickelgren WA. Associative strength theory of recognition memory for pitch. J Math Psychol, 1969; 6(1): 13–61.
34.
Gerrits E, Schouten M. Categorical perception depends on the discrimination task. Percep Psychophys, 2004; 66(3): 363–76.
35.
ASHA. Guidelines for the audiologic assessment of children from birth to 5 years of age, 2004.
36.
Bull AR, Cuddy LL. Recognition memory for pitch of fixed and roving stimulus tones. Percep Psychophys, 1972; 11(1): 105–09.
37.
Brown GS, White KG. The optimal correction for estimating extreme discriminability. Behav Res Meth, 2005; 37(3): 436–49.
38.
Duncan J, Humphreys GW. Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychol Rev, 1989; 96(3): 433.
39.
Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percep Psychophys, 1974; 16(1): 143–49.
40.
Ernst MO, Banks MS. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 2002; 415(6870): 429–33.
41.
Ryan TA. Multiple comparison in psychological research. Psychol Bull, 1959; 56(1): 26.
42.
Shepherd D, Hautus MJ, Stocks MA, Quek SY. The single interval adjustment matrix (SIAM) yes–no task: an empirical assessment using auditory and gustatory stimuli. Attent Percep Psychophys, 2011; 73(6): 1934.
43.
Leek MR. Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Percep Psychophys, 2001; 63(8): 1279–92.
44.
Taylor M, Forbes S, Creelman CD. PEST reduces bias in forced choice psychophysics. J Acoust Soc Am, 1983; 74(5): 1367–74.
45.
Klein SA. Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: A commentary. Percep Psychoacoust, 2001; 63(8): 1421–55.
46.
Watson JE, Blampied NM. Quantification of the effects of chlorpromazine on performance under delayed matching to sample in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav, 1989; 51(3): 317–28.
47.
Jones BM, White KG. Sample–stimulus discriminability and sensitivity to reinforcement in delayed matching to sample. J Exp Anal Behav, 1992; 58(1): 159–72.
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
