Re: AUDITORY Digest - 23 May 1999 to 27 May 1999 (#1999-74)

["Chuck Watson Ph.D" <watson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would bet that "10 to 30%" is way too high. Virtually everyone can
discriminate pitch differences of 2-3% or less, at least in our experience
with close to 1000 normal-hearing (by audiogram) college students.  However
we normally use a trial structure in which the listener responds that either
sequence <AAB> or <ABA> was presented, so we cannot say for sure whether
they can do more than recognize differences.  I have heard various reports
over the years that suggest that a few people don't appreciate what "high
and low" mean with respect to frequency.  Can't recall a relevant reference
right off...wasn't there some talk about cultures in which "pitch height"
was not such a common concept?  It is an issue in "semantic psychophysics",
right?

Chuck Watson

> -----Original Message-----
> From: AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception
> [mailto:AUDITORY@LISTS.MCGILL.CA]On Behalf Of Automatic digest processor
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 11:00 PM
> To: Recipients of AUDITORY digests
> Subject: AUDITORY Digest - 23 May 1999 to 27 May 1999 (#1999-74)
>
>
> There are 2 messages totalling 103 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. pitch discrimination (2)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 16:24:24 -0400
> From:    "Robert J. Zatorre" <MD37@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
> Subject: pitch discrimination
>
> Dear List
>
> A reviewer of a recent paper of ours has written the following:
>
> "...I thought it was well established that 10 to 30% of normal subjects
> cannot judge which frequency [in a pair of pure tones] is higher or lower
> (above chance), while all subjects are generally able to judge if two
> frequencies are identical or not."
>
> My question: is this, in fact, well established, as the reviewer claims,
> and if so, what might be the reference for this?
>
> Any leads you all can give us would be appreciated
>
> Thanks
>
> Robert
> Robert J. Zatorre, Ph.D.
> Montreal Neurological Institute
> 3801 University St.
> Montreal, QC
> H3A2B4
> Canada
>
> phone: 514-398-8903
> fax 514-398-1338
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 27 May 1999 16:58:45 -0500
> From:    "Jesteadt, Walt" <jesteadt@BOYSTOWN.ORG>
> Subject: Re: pitch discrimination
>
> Dear Robert,
>
>         There were some models and very limited data in the late 60's
> suggesting that listeners could make Same-Different judgments
> about pitch of
> pure tones, but not high-low judgments.  For intensity discimination,
> high-low judgments were known to be more accurate than same-different
> judgments, for a given difference between the two stimuli to be compared,
> and there was a signal detection theory explanation as to why that was the
> case.  Bob Bilger and I made those paradigm comparisons for both intensity
> and frequency discrimination in the same subjects and found they
> worked the
> same way.  High-low judgments in a 2IFC task were better than
> Same-Different
> for both intensity and frequency discrimination.  The reference is W.
> Jesteadt and R. C. Bilger, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 55, 1266-1276, (1974).
>
>         Since I tested only four subjects, there may be a some
> subjects who
> do have that problem.  I do not know of such a reference.  If
> anyone does, I
> would be interested in it.
>
> Walt
>
> Walt Jesteadt            Jesteadt@Boystown.Org
> Director of Research
> Boystown National Research Hospital
> 555 N. 30th Street       Phn: (402) 498-6704
> Omaha, NE  68131         FAX: (402) 498-6351
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert J. Zatorre [mailto:MD37@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 3:24 PM
> To: AUDITORY@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
> Subject: pitch discrimination
>
>
> Dear List
>
> A reviewer of a recent paper of ours has written the following:
>
> "...I thought it was well established that 10 to 30% of normal subjects
> cannot judge which frequency [in a pair of pure tones] is higher or lower
> (above chance), while all subjects are generally able to judge if two
> frequencies are identical or not."
>
> My question: is this, in fact, well established, as the reviewer claims,
> and if so, what might be the reference for this?
>
> Any leads you all can give us would be appreciated
>
> Thanks
>
> Robert
> Robert J. Zatorre, Ph.D.
> Montreal Neurological Institute
> 3801 University St.
> Montreal, QC
> H3A2B4
> Canada
>
> phone: 514-398-8903
> fax 514-398-1338
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of AUDITORY Digest - 23 May 1999 to 27 May 1999 (#1999-74)
> **************************************************************
>