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 as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
TEMPORAL PROCESSING IN MUSICIANS
AND NON-MUSICIANS
1
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, Mysore, India
Publication date: 2014-09-30
Corresponding author
Priyanka Vijaya Kumar
Priyanka Vijaya Kumar, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, Mysore – 570006, India, Tel: +91 9886801509, e-mail: priyanka.vishu@gmail.com
Priyanka Vijaya Kumar, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, Mysore – 570006, India, Tel: +91 9886801509, e-mail: priyanka.vishu@gmail.com
J Hear Sci 2014;4(3):35-42
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Temporal processing abilities are important for speech perception, and they are generally superior in musicians than in non-musicians. Since there are many different training methods used to develop musical expertise (e.g. vocal or instrumental), these differences could lead to varying temporal processing abilities of acoustic signals. The current study aims to see if there are any differences in temporal processing abilities between violinists and vocalists.
Material and Methods:
Four different psychoacoustic tests – gap detection threshold (GDT), duration discrimination test (DDT), duration pattern test (DPT), and the modulation detection threshold for sinusoidally amplitude-modulated noise (SAM) at six different modulation frequencies – were used to assess differences in temporal processing abilities between 15 trained violinists and 15 trained vocalists. The results were compared with a group of 15 non-musicians.
Results:
Musicians, both violinists and vocalists, always performed significantly better (p<0.01) than non-musicians in all 4 psychoacoustic tests. Vocalists performed equal to or slightly better than violinists in GDT and at 5/6 modulation frequencies in modulation detection threshold for SAM noise test, although the differences were not statistically significant.
Conclusions:
Although vocalists and instrumentalists undergo different forms of training in terms of the sound they produce and the sound qualities they need to perceive, the training does not lead to any major difference in their temporal processing abilities of acoustic signals.
Temporal processing abilities are important for speech perception, and they are generally superior in musicians than in non-musicians. Since there are many different training methods used to develop musical expertise (e.g. vocal or instrumental), these differences could lead to varying temporal processing abilities of acoustic signals. The current study aims to see if there are any differences in temporal processing abilities between violinists and vocalists.
Material and Methods:
Four different psychoacoustic tests – gap detection threshold (GDT), duration discrimination test (DDT), duration pattern test (DPT), and the modulation detection threshold for sinusoidally amplitude-modulated noise (SAM) at six different modulation frequencies – were used to assess differences in temporal processing abilities between 15 trained violinists and 15 trained vocalists. The results were compared with a group of 15 non-musicians.
Results:
Musicians, both violinists and vocalists, always performed significantly better (p<0.01) than non-musicians in all 4 psychoacoustic tests. Vocalists performed equal to or slightly better than violinists in GDT and at 5/6 modulation frequencies in modulation detection threshold for SAM noise test, although the differences were not statistically significant.
Conclusions:
Although vocalists and instrumentalists undergo different forms of training in terms of the sound they produce and the sound qualities they need to perceive, the training does not lead to any major difference in their temporal processing abilities of acoustic signals.
REFERENCES (31)
2.
Minifie F. Speech acoustics. In: Minifie T, Hixon T, Williams F (eds.), Normal Aspects of Speech, Hearing and Language 1973; Englewoods Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall.
3.
Schneider BA, Pichora-Fuller K. Age-related changes in temporal processing: implications for speech perception. Semin Hear, 2001; 22(3): 227–39.
4.
Lisker L. Closure duration and the voiced–voiceless distinction in English. Language, 1957; 33: 42–9.
5.
Lisker L, Abramson AS. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: acoustical measurements. Word, 1964; 20: 384–422.
6.
Murthy. Closure duration as a cue to stop consonant voicing: a developmental study in 3–6 years old Kannada speaking children. JISHA, 1993; 8: 12–21.
7.
Fischer-Jorgensen E. Temporal relation in consonant vowels syllables with stop consonant based on Danish material. In: Lindblom B, Ohman S (eds.), Frontiers of Speech Communication Research, 1979; Academic Press, Inc., London.
8.
Zue VW. Acoustic characteristics of stop consonant: a controlled study. Lincoln Laboratory Technical Report, 1976; No. 523.
9.
Mohamadkhani G, Nilforoushkhoshk MH, Mohammadi AZ, Faghihzadeh S, Sepehrnejhad M. Comparison of gap in noise test results in musicians and non-musician controls. Audiology, 2010; 19(2): 33–8.
10.
Monteiro RA, Nascimento FM, Soares CD, Ferreira MD. Temporal resolution abilities in musicians and non-musicians. Int Arch Otolaryngol, 2010; 14(3): 302–8.
11.
Nascimento FM, Monteiro RA, Soares C, Ferreira MD. Temporal sequencing abilities in musicians violinists and non-musicians. Intl Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2010; 14(2): 217–24.
12.
Rammsayer T, Altenmuller E. Temporal information processing in musicians and non-musicians. Music Percept, 2006; 24: 37–48.
13.
Thomas OT, Rajalakshmi K. Effect of music training on temporal resolution abilities and speech perception in noise. Unpublished Masters dissertation 2011; University of Mysore, Mysore.
14.
Rana B, Juneja A, Sinha S, Rajalakshmi K. Comparison of temporal resolution abilities in elderly musicians and non-musicians with hearing loss. Proceedings of International Symposium of Frontiers of Research on Speech and Music, 2014: 21–5.
15.
Peretz I. The Nature of Music from a Biological perspective. Cognition, 2006; 100: 1–32.
16.
Wolfe J. Speech and music, acoustics and coding, and what music might be ‘for’. Proceedings of the 7th International conference on Music perception and cognition, Sydney, Stevens K, Burnham D, McPherson G, Schubert E, Renwick J, (eds.), 2002: 10–13.
17.
Wolfe J. Speech and music: acoustics, signals and the relation between them. Proceedings of the inaugural International conference on Music communication science, Sydney, Australia. December 2007; 176–9.
18.
Kishon-Rabin L, Amir O, Vexler Y, Zaltz Y. Pitch discrimination: are professional musicians better than nonmusicians? J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol, 2001; 12: 125–43.
19.
Seppänen MS, Brattico E, Tervaniemi M. Practice strategies in musicians modulate the neural processing and learning of sound-patterns. Neurobiol Learn Mem, 2007; 87: 236–47.
20.
Jayakumar H, Gore M. Temporal Resolution in Musicians and Non musicians. Unpublished Masters dissertation 2010; University of Bangalore, Bangalore.
21.
Nikjeh DA. Vocal and instrumental musicians: electrophysiologic and psychoacoustic analysis of pitch discrimination and production. Graduate School Theses and Dissertations 2006; University of South Florida. Paper 2646.
22.
Spiegel MF, Watson CS. Performance on frequency-discrimination tasks by musicians and non-musicians. J Acoust Soc Am, 1984; 76: 1690–5.
23.
American National Standards Institute. Maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test rooms (Rev. ed.) (ANSI S3.1-1999) 2003; New York.
24.
Carhart R, Jerger JF. Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord, 1959; 24: 330–45.
25.
Rajashekar B, Vyasamurthy MN. Development and standardization of a picture SRT test for adults and children in Kannada. Unpublished Master’s dissertation 1976; University of Mysore, Mysore.
26.
Yathiraj A, Vijayalakshmi CS. Phonemically balanced word list in Kannada. Developed in Department of Audiology, AIISH, 2005; Mysore.
27.
Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 1971; 49(2): Suppl 2: 467.
28.
Gauri DT, Manjula P. Development of Norms on Duration Pattern Test. Unpublished Masters dissertation 2003; University of Mysore, Mysore.
29.
Grassi M, Soranzo A. MLP: A MATLAB Toolbox for Rapid and Reliable Auditory Threshold Estimations 2009.
30.
Sangamanatha AV, Fernandes J, Bhat J, Srivastava M, Udupa SP. Temporal resolution in individuals with and without musical training. JISHA, 2012; 26(1): 27–35.
31.
Halwani GF, Loui P, Rüber T, Schlaug G. Effects of practice and experience on the arcuate fasciculus: comparing singers, instrumentalists, and non-musicians. Front Psychol, 2011; 2: 156.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
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.
