View More View Less
  • 1 Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology H-1394 Budapest P.O. Box 398 Hungary
  • | 2 Budapest University of Technology and Economics Department of Telecommunications and Media Informatics H-1117 Budapest Magyar tudósok krt. 2. Hungary
  • | 3 Russian Academy of Sciences Pavlov Institute of Physiology Makarova nab. 6 100034 St. Petersburg Russia
  • | 4 University of Leipzig Institute of Psychology Neumarkt 9–19 D-04109 Leipzig Germany
  • | 5 Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg Institute of Psychology Ammerländer Heerstr. 114–118 D-26129 Oldenburg Germany
  • | 6 Johns Hopkins University Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering 3400 North Charles Str. Baltimore MD 21218 USA
  • | 7 University of Cyprus Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering P.O. Box 20537 1678 Nicosia Cyprus
  • | 8 University of Plymouth Cognition Institute and School of Psychology Drake Circus Plymouth PL4 8AA UK
  • | 9 University of Szeged Institute of Psychology H-6722 Szeged Petőfi S. sgt. 30–34 Hungary
Restricted access

The human auditory system is capable of grouping sounds originating from different sound sources into coherent auditory streams, a process termed auditory stream segregation. Several cues can influence auditory stream segregation, but the full set of cues and the way in which they are integrated is still unknown. In the current study, we tested whether auditory motion can serve as a cue for segregating sequences of tones. Our hypothesis was that, following the principle of common fate, sounds emitted by sources moving together in space along similar trajectories will be more likely to be grouped into a single auditory stream, while sounds emitted by independently moving sources will more often be heard as two streams. Stimuli were derived from sound recordings in which the sound source motion was induced by walking humans. Although the results showed a clear effect of spatial separation, auditory motion had a negligible influence on stream segregation. Hence, auditory motion may not be used as a primitive cue in auditory stream segregation.

  • Altman, J. A., Vaitulevich, S. P., Shestopalova, L. B., Petropavlovskaia, E. A. (2010): How does mismatch negativity reflect auditory motion? Hearing Research, 268, 194–201.

  • Altman, J. A., Vaitulevich, S. P., Shestopalova, L. B., Varfolomeev, A. L. (2005). Mismatch negativity evoked by stationary and moving auditory images of different azimuthal positions. Neuroscience Letters, 384, 330–335.

  • Blauert, J. (1997). Spatial Hearing. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

  • Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory Scene Analysis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

  • Denham, S. L., Gyimesi, K., Stefanics, G., Winker, I. (2013). Perceptual bi-stability in auditory streaming: How much do stimulus features matter? Learning and Perception, 5(Suppl. 2), 73–100. (this issue)

  • Denham, S. L., Gyimesi, K., Stefanics, G., Winkler, I. (2009). Stability of perceptual organisation in auditory streaming. In: Lopez-Poveda, E.A., Palmer, A. R., Meddis, R. (eds.), The Neurophysiological Bases of Auditory Perception (pp. 477–488). Springer.

  • Denham, S. L., Winkler, I. (2006). The role of predictive models in the formation of auditory streams. Journal of Physiology–Paris, 100, 154–170.

  • Georgiou, J., Pouliquen, P., Cassidy, A., Garreau, G., Andreou, C., Stuarts, G. et al. (2011). A multimodal-corpus data collection system for cognitive acoustic scene analysis. In 45th Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems (CISS 2011) (pp. 1–6).

  • Grantham, D. W. (1995). Spatial hearing and related phenomena. In B.C.J.Moore (Ed.), Hearing (pp. 297–346). San Diego: Academic Press.

  • Grimault, N., Bacon, S. P., Micheyl, C. (2002). Auditory stream segregation on the basis of amplitude-modulation rate. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 1340–1348.

  • Judd, T. (1977). An explanation of Deutsch’s scale illusion. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Cornell University.

  • Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt Psychology. (2 ed.) New York: Liveright.

  • Middlebrooks, J. C., Green, D. M. (1991). Sound Localization by Human Listeners. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 135–159.

  • Moore, B. C. J., Gockel, H. (2002). Factors influencing sequential stream segregation. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 88, 320–333.

  • Moreno-Bote, R., Shpiro, A., Rinzel, J., Rubin, N. (2010). Alternation rate in perceptual bistability is maximal at and symmetric around equi-dominance. Journal of Vision, 10.

  • Perrott, D. R., Marlborough, K. (1989). Minimum Audible Movement Angle – Marking the End-Points of the Path Traveled by A Moving Sound Source. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 1773–1775.

  • Pressnitzer, D., Hupé, J. M. (2006). Temporal dynamics of auditory and visual bistability reveal common principles of perceptual organization. Current Biology, 16, 1351–1357.

  • Roberts, B., Glasberg, B. R., Moore, B. C. (2002). Primitive stream segregation of tone sequences without differences in fundamental frequency or passband. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 2074–2085.

  • Smith, J., Hausfeld, S., Power, R. P., Gorta, A. (1982). Ambiguous musical figures and auditory streaming. Percept.Psychophys., 32, 454–464.

  • Szalárdy, O., Bendixen, A., Tóth, D., Denham, S. L., Winkler, I. (2013). Modulation frequency acts as a primary cue for auditory stream segregation. Learning and Perception,5(Suppl. 2) 149–161 (this issue)

  • van Noorden, L. P. A. S. (1975). Temporal coherence in the perception of tone sequences. Ph.D. Eindhoven University of Technology, Leiden, The Netherlands.

  • Vliegen, J., Oxenham, A. J. (1999). Sequential stream segregation in the absence of spectral cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 339–346.

  • Winkler, I. (2007). Interpreting the mismatch negativity. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 147–163.

  • Winkler, I., Denham, S. L., Nelken, I. (2009). Modeling the auditory scene: predictive regularity representations and perceptual objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 532–540.

Learning & Perception
Language English
Year of
per Year
per Year
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1789-3186 (Print)
ISSN 2060-9175 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
May 2021 2 0 0
Jun 2021 2 0 0
Jul 2021 0 0 0
Aug 2021 20 0 0
Sep 2021 1 0 0
Oct 2021 1 0 0
Nov 2021 0 0 0