Subject: [AUDITORY] Quantitative roughness data for dichotic pure-tone pairs? From: Sage Betko <sbetko@xxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 20:34:51 -0400Dear AUDITORY list, I am looking for psychophysical measurements of perceived roughness for a steady dichotic pure-tone pair, with one tone presented to each ear over headphones, as a function of mean frequency, frequency difference, and presentation level. For context, I am building a real-time audio visualizer. It currently applies a Sethares-style pairwise sensory-dissonance heuristic and a separate Daniel-Weber-style roughness estimator independently to the two ear signals. A dichotic pair therefore contributes nothing to either same-ear calculation, although it can produce a binaural beat and, over part of the beat-rate range, a rough percept. I have found measurements of binaural-beat frequency and detection limits (Licklider, Webster & Hedlun, 1950; Perrott & Nelson, 1969), descriptions of qualitative percept transitions and beat-detection data around a 500-Hz mean frequency (Ross et al., 2014), and matches between binaural beats and SAM for modulation salience at 500 Hz (Grose, Buss & Hall, 2012). Miskiewicz, Rakowski & Rosciszewska (2006) map perceived roughness for simultaneous pure-tone pairs by absolute magnitude estimation, but I have not found a reported dichotic condition. Diotic/dichotic pure-tone work such as McDermott, Lehr & Oxenham (2010) and Cousineau, McDermott & Peretz (2012) uses pleasantness, preference, or discrimination rather than roughness magnitude. I also found the recent Ichimiya & Ichimiya (2025) preprint, which includes pairwise roughness judgments for dichotic tonal sequences, but not a parametric magnitude function for steady tone pairs. Does anyone know of either: 1. Magnitude-estimation or direct roughness-matching data for dichotic pure-tone pairs across mean or carrier frequency and frequency difference, with levels at both ears specified and ideally with monaural and/or diotic controls; or 2. A validated equivalence between a binaural beat and SAM or same-ear beating specifically on the roughness dimension? I considered treating the SAM depth matched to binaural-beat salience as an equivalent modulation depth in a roughness model. That seems unjustified: matched modulation salience need not imply matched roughness, and at the lower rates the salient percept may be motion or slow fluctuation rather than roughness. The practical question is whether to leave this cross-ear percept outside the same-ear calculations or represent it as a separate, explicitly labeled binaural-interaction cue. I would not apply a fixed attenuation to a same-ear roughness curve without supporting data. References and corrections would be very welcome. I will summarize replies for the list. Best, Sage Betko