Subject: Re: AUDITORY Digest - 23 May 1999 to 27 May 1999 (#1999-74) From: "Chuck Watson Ph.D" <watson(at)INDIANA.EDU> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 11:02:32 -0500I 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(at)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(at)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(at)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(at)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(at)MUSICA.MCGILL.CA] > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 3:24 PM > To: AUDITORY(at)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) > ************************************************************** >