Advertisement

Interaction Between Pitch and Timbre Perception in Normal-Hearing Listeners and Cochlear Implant Users

  • Xin LuoEmail author
  • Samara Soslowsky
  • Kathryn R. Pulling
Research Article

Abstract

Despite their mutually exclusive definitions, pitch and timbre perception interact with each other in normal-hearing (NH) listeners. Cochlear implant (CI) users have worse than normal pitch and timbre perception. However, the pitch-timbre interaction with CIs is not well understood. This study tested the interaction between pitch and sharpness (an aspect of timbre) perception related to the fundamental frequency (F0) and spectral slope of harmonic complex tones, respectively, in both NH listeners and CI users. In experiment 1, the F0 (and spectral slope) difference limens (DLs) were measured with a fixed spectral slope (and F0) and 20-dB amplitude roving. Then, the F0 and spectral slope were varied congruently or incongruently by the same multiple of individual DLs to assess the pitch and sharpness ranking sensitivity. Both NH and CI subjects had significantly higher pitch and sharpness ranking sensitivity with congruent than with incongruent F0 and spectral slope variations, and showed a similar symmetric interaction between pitch and timbre perception. In experiment 2, CI users’ melodic contour identification (MCI) was tested in three spectral slope (no, congruent, and incongruent spectral slope variations by the same multiple of individual DLs as the F0 variations) and two amplitude conditions (0- and 20-dB amplitude roving). When there was no amplitude roving, the MCI scores were significantly higher with congruent than with no, and in turn than with incongruent spectral slope variations. The 20-dB amplitude roving significantly reduced the overall MCI scores and the effect of spectral slope variations. These results reflected a confusion between higher (or lower) pitch and sharper (or duller) timbre and offered important implications for understanding and enhancing pitch and timbre perception with CIs.

Keywords

cochlear implant pitch timbre fundamental frequency spectral slope 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all the subjects for their participation in this study. Research was supported by Arizona State University.

References

  1. Allen EJ, Oxenham AJ (2014) Symmetric interactions and interference between pitch and timbre. J Acoust Soc Am 135:1371–1379.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4863269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen EJ, Burton PC, Olman CA, Oxenham AJ (2017) Representations of pitch and timbre variation in human auditory cortex. J Neurosci 37:1284–1293.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2336-16.2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ANSI (1994) S1.1-1994, American Standard Acoustical Terminology (R2004). American National Standards Institute, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Beal AL (1985) The skill of recognizing musical structures. Mem Cogn 13:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crew JD, Galvin JJ, Fu Q (2016) Perception of sung speech in bimodal cochlear implant users. Trends Hear 20:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216516669329 Google Scholar
  6. Dowling WJ, Fujitani DS (1971) Contour, interval, and pitch recognition in memory for melodies. J Acoust Soc Am 49:524–531.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Galvin JJ, Fu Q-J, Nogaki G (2007) Melodic contour identification by cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear 28:302–319.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aud.0000261689.35445.20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garner WR (1974) The processing of information and structure. Erlbaum, PotomacGoogle Scholar
  9. Gfeller K, Turner C, Mehr M, Woodworth G, Fearn R, Knutson JF, Witt S, Stordahl J (2002a) Recognition of familiar melodies by adult cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults. Cochlear Implants Int 3:29–53.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cii.50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gfeller K, Witt S, Mehr M, Woodworth G, Knutson JF (2002b) Effects of frequency, instrumental family, and cochlear implant type on timbre recognition and appraisal. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 111:349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J, Zhang X, Gantz B, Froman R, Olszewski C (2007) Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise. Ear Hear 28:412–423.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3180479318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grey JM (1977) Multidimensional perceptual scaling of musical timbres. J Acoust Soc Am 61:1270–1277.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hacker MJ, Ratcliff R (1979) A revised table of d’ for M-alternative forced choice. Percept Psychophys 26:168–170.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kang R, Nimmons GL, Drennan W, Longnion J, Ruffin C, Nie K, Won JH, Worman T, Yueh B, Rubinstein J (2009) Development and validation of the University of Washington clinical assessment of music perception test. Ear Hear 30:411–418.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181a61bc0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klatt DH, Klatt LC (1990) Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 87:820–857.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.398894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kong Y, Mullangi A, Marozeau J, Epstein M (2011) Temporal and spectral cues for musical timbre perception in electric hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 54:981–995.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/10-0196)b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krumhansl CL, Iverson P (1992) Perceptual interactions between musical pitch and timbre. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:739–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee C-Y (2009) Identifying isolated, multispeaker mandarin tones from brief acoustic input: a perceptual and acoustic study. J Acoust Soc Am 125:1125–1137.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3050322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li XF, Pastore RE (1995) Perceptual constancy of a global spectral property: spectral slope discrimination. J Acoust Soc Am 98:1956–1968.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.413315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luo X, Fu Q-J (2004) Enhancing Chinese tone recognition by manipulating amplitude envelope: implications for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 116:3659–3667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luo X, Padilla M, Landsberger DM (2012) Pitch contour identification with combined place and temporal cues using cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 131:1325–1336.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3672708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luo X, Masterson ME, Wu C-C (2014a) Melodic interval perception by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 136:1831–1844.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4894738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luo X, Masterson ME, Wu C-C (2014b) Contour identification with pitch and loudness cues using cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 135:EL8–E14.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4832915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Macherey O, Delpierre A (2013) Perception of musical timbre by cochlear implant listeners: a multidimensional scaling study. Ear Hear 34:426–436.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31827535f8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McAdams S, Winsberg S, Donnadieu S, De Soete G, Krimphoff J (1995) Perceptual scaling of synthesized musical timbres: common dimensions, specificities, and latent subject classes. Psychol Res 58:177–192.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDermott JH, Lehr AJ, Oxenham AJ (2008) Is relative pitch specific to pitch? Psychol Sci 19:1263–1271.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02235.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKay CM, McDermott HJ, Carlyon RP (2000) Place and temporal cues in pitch perception: are they truly independent? Acoust Res Lett Online 1:25–30.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1318742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Melara RD, Marks LE (1990) Interaction among auditory dimensions: timbre, pitch, and loudness. Percept Psychophys 48:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neuhoff JG, McBeath MK, Wanzie WC (1999) Dynamic frequency change influences loudness perception: a central, analytic process. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1050–1059.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.1050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oxenham AJ (2008) Pitch perception and auditory stream segregation: implications for hearing loss and cochlear implants. Trends Amplif 12:316–331.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713808325881 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pitt MA (1994) Perception of pitch and timbre by musically trained and untrained listeners. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:976–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scherer KR (2003) Vocal communication of emotion: a review of research paradigms. Speech Comm 40:227–256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00084-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M (1995) Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 80.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.270.5234.303
  34. Silbert NH, Townsend JT, Lentz JJ (2009) Independence and separability in the perception of complex nonspeech sounds. Atten Percept Psychophysiol 71:1900–1915.  https://doi.org/10.3758/APP CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tsang CD, Trainor LJ (2002) Spectral slope discrimination in infancy: sensitivity to socially important timbres. Infant Behav Dev 25:183–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00120-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. von Bismarck G (1974a) Timbre of steady sounds: a factorial investigation of its verbal attributes. Acustica 30:146–159Google Scholar
  37. von Bismarck G (1974b) Sharpness as an attribute of the timbre of steady sounds. Acustica 30:159–172Google Scholar
  38. Won JH, Drennan WR, Kang RS, Rubinstein JT (2010) Psychoacoustic abilities associated with music perception in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 31:796–805.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181e8b7bd CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zeng FG (2002) Temporal pitch in electric hearing. Hear Res 174:101–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(02)00644-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Health SolutionsArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations