Subject: Re: The auditory continuity phenomenon: tones vs. glides (and other complex sounds) From: Bob Carlyon <Bob.Carlyon@xxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:01:07 -0000 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>Take a look at Ciocca & Bregman, Perecption & Psychophysics (1987) p476-484 "Perceived continuity of gliding and steady-state tones through interrupting noise" A quick glance at their Fig 2 suggests that a glide, is, if anything, judged a slightly less continuous thana steady tone, although they don't say whether this is significant (note that in their figure small numbers=> more continuity) Perhaps if they had rewarded their subjects with bananas, the results would have been different? bob >> >> I have a question regarding the auditory continuity >> phenomenon. >> >> >> >> The literature I have reviewed shows that listeners >> perceive tones and >> glides as maintaining continuity over breaks of up to 300 >> ms, if the gap is >> 'filled' with louder noise ( e.g., Warren et al., 1972; >> Dannenbring & >> Bregman, 1976; Ciocca & Bregman, 1987; Nakajima & Sasaki, >> 1996; Drake & >> McAdams, 1999) >> >> >> >> It seems plausible to think that the continuity effect >> for glides should be >> stronger due to frequency trajectory cues or feedforward >> effects. A pure >> tone can not take advantage from those types of cues; it >> has no movement and >> its trajectory is redundant. >> >> >> >> Do you know any studies showing differences between >> perceived continuity of >> steady vs. glides?** >> >> >> >> Thank you >> >> >> >> >> >> Elvira >> > >> >> please, add also this reference: >> Vicario, G. (1960). L'effetto tunnel acustico. Rivista di >> Psicologia, >> 54, 41-52. >> >> m >> >> ******************** >> Massimo Grassi - PhD >> Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale >> Via Venezia 8 - 35131 Padova - Italy >> http://www.psy.unipd.it/~grassi >> > > > Dear Elvira, > > I'm not sure that the human literature on continuity has > quantified the tone vs. glide effect, but then again the > behavioral literature is quite extensive so it may be we > missed it. > > We noticed exactly what you describe with our behavioral > study of macaques. We quantified their thresholds during > continuity using a very challenging psychophysical task. We > used the following stimuli: (1) tones, (2) FM glides, and > (3) 'coo' vocalizations. The results showed continuity was > stronger for the coo than the tone (but as a control > masking was about the same, Fig. 4), and as you proposed we > observed that thresholds were higher for the FM glide than > the tone during continuity (again masking was about the > same). > > The paper is: > > Petkov, O'Connor & Sutter. (2003) Illusory sound perception > in macaque monkeys. J Neuroscience. 23: 9155-9161. > > I have the paper on our website (but mainly for viewing, to > be fair to the journal). > > Best wishes, > > -Chris Petkov > > Max-Planck Institute > for Biological Cybernetics > Tuebingen, Germany > http://www.kyb.mpg.de/~chrisp > --