View More View Less
  • 1 University of Plymouth Cognition Institute and School of Psychology Drake Circus Plymouth PL4 8AA UK
  • | 2 Research Centre for Natural Sciences, MTA Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology H-1394 Budapest P.O. Box 398. Hungary
  • | 3 Budapest University of Technology and Economics Department of Cognitive Science H-1111 Budapest Stoczek u. 2 Hungary
  • | 4 University of Zurich Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research P.O. Box 146 CH-8091 Zurich Switzerland
  • | 5 University of Szeged Institute of Psychology H-6722 Szeged Petőfi S. sgt. 30–34 Hungary
Restricted access

The auditory two-tone streaming paradigm has been used extensively to study the mechanisms that underlie the decomposition of the auditory input into coherent sound sequences. Using longer tone sequences than usual in the literature, we show that listeners hold their first percept of the sound sequence for a relatively long period, after which perception switches between two or more alternative sound organizations, each held on average for a much shorter duration. The first percept also differs from subsequent ones in that stimulus parameters influence its quality and duration to a far greater degree than the subsequent ones. We propose an account of auditory streaming in terms of rivalry between competing temporal associations based on two sets of processes. The formation of associations (discovery of alternative interpretations) mainly affects the first percept by determining which sound group is discovered first and how long it takes for alternative groups to be established. In contrast, subsequent percepts arise from stochastic switching between the alternatives, the dynamics of which are determined by competitive interactions between the set of coexisting interpretations.

  • Anourova, I., Rama, P., et al. (1999): Selective interference reveals dissociation between auditory memory for location and pitch. Neuroreport, 10(17), 3543–3547.

  • Anstis, S., Saida, S. (1985): Adaptation to auditory streaming of frequency-modulated tones. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 11(3), 257–271.

  • Beauvois, M. W., Meddis, R. (1996): Computer simulation of auditory stream segregation in alternating-tone sequences. J Acoust Soc Am, 99(4 Pt 1), 2270–2280.

  • Bee, M. A., Micheyl, C. (2008): The cocktail party problem: what is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it? J Comp Psychol, 122(3), 235–251.

  • Bendixen, A., Bőhm, T. M., et al. (2011): Different roles of proximity and predictability in auditory stream segregation, submitted.

  • Bendixen, A., Denham, S. L., et al. (2010): Regular patterns stabilize auditory streams. J Acoust Soc Am, 128(6), 3658–3666.

  • Blake, R., Logothetis, N. K. (2002): Visual competition. Nat Rev Neurosci, 3(1), 13–21.

  • Brascamp, J. W., van Ee, R., et al. (2006): The time course of binocular rivalry reveals a fundamental role of noise. J Vis, 6(11), 1244–1256.

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

  • Bregman, A. S., Ahad, P. A., et al. (2000): Effects of time intervals and tone durations on auditory stream segregation. Percept Psychophys, 62(3), 626–636.

  • Brunswik, E. (1956): Perception and the representative design of psychologicalexperiments. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

  • Carter, O., Cavanagh, P. (2007): Onset rivalry: brief presentation isolates an early independent phase of perceptual competition. PLoS ONE, 2(4), e343.

  • Cowan, N. (1984): On short and long auditory stores. Psychol Bull, 96, 351–370.

  • Cusack, R., Deeks, J., et al. (2004): Effects of location, frequency region, and time course of selective attention on auditory scene analysis. J Exp Psychol HumPercept Perform, 30(4), 643–656.

  • Czigler, I., Winkler, I. (1996): Preattentive auditory change detection relies on unitary sensory memory representations. Neuroreport,7, 2413–2417.

  • Denham, S. L., Gyimesi, K., et al. (2010): Stability of perceptual organisation in auditory streaming. In: The Neurophysiological Bases of Auditory Perception. Lopez-Poveda, E. A., Palmer, A. R., Meddis, R. (eds.) Springer, pp. 477–488.

  • Denham, S. L., Winkler, I. (2006): The role of predictive models in the formation of auditory streams. J Physiol Paris, 100(1–3), 154–170.

  • Elhilali, M., Ma, L., et al. (2009): Temporal coherence in the perceptual organization and cortical representation of auditory scenes. Neuron, 61(2), 317–329.

  • Elhilali, M., Shamma, S. A. (2008): A cocktail party with a cortical twist: how cortical mechanisms contribute to sound segregation. J Acoust Soc Am, 124(6), 3751–3771.

  • Fowler, C. A., Rosenblum, L. D. (1990): Duplex perception – a comparison of monosyllables and slamming doors. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 16(4), 742–754.

  • Hochberg, J. (1981): Levels of perceptual organization. In: Perceptual organization. Pomerantz, M. K. J. (ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 255–278.

  • Hohwy, J., Roepstorff, A., et al. (2008): Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: an epistemological review. Cognition, 108(3), 687–701.

  • Horváth, J., Czigler, I., et al. (2001): Simultaneously active pre-attentive representations of local and global rules for sound sequences in the human brain. Brain ResCogn Brain Res, 12(1), 131–144.

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

  • Kondo, H. M., Kashino, M. (2009): Involvement of the thalamocortical loop in the spontaneous switching of percepts in auditory streaming. J Neurosci, 29(40), 12695–12701.

  • Lee, S. H., Blake, R., et al. (2007): Hierarchy of cortical responses underlying binocular rivalry. Nat Neurosci, 10(8), 1048–1054.

  • Leopold, D. A., Logothetis, N. K. (1999): Multistable phenomena: changing views in perception. Trends Cogn Sci, 3(7), 254–264.

  • Liberman, A. M. (1982): On finding that speech is special. American Psychologist, 37(2), 148–167.

  • Mamassian, P., Goutcher, R. (2005): Temporal dynamics in bistable perception. J Vis, 5(4), 361–375.

  • Micheyl, C., Carlyon, R. P., et al. (2007): The role of auditory cortex in the formation of auditory streams. Hear Res, 229(1–2), 116–131.

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

  • Moreno-Bote, R., Shpiro, A., et al. (2010): Alternation rate in perceptual bistability is maximal at and symmetric around equi-dominance. J Vis, 10(11), 1.

  • Neisser, U. (1967): Cognitive Psychology. Appleton–Century–Crofts, New York.

  • Noest, A. J., van Ee, R., et al. (2007): Percept-choice sequences driven by interrupted ambiguous stimuli: a low-level neural model. J Vis, 7(8), 10.

  • Pastukhov, A., Braun, J. (2008): A short-term memory of multi-stable perception. J Vis, 8(13), 7 1–14.

  • Pressnitzer, D., Hupé, J. M. (2006): Temporal dynamics of auditory and visual bistability reveal common principles of perceptual organization. Curr Biol, 16(13), 1351–1357.

  • Ramnani, N. (2006): The primate cortico-cerebellar system: anatomy and function. Nat Rev Neurosci, 7(7), 511–522.

  • Rees, G., Kreiman, G., et al. (2002): Neural correlates of consciousness in humans. Nat Rev Neurosci, 3(4), 261–270.

  • Schadwinkel, S., Gutschalk, A. (2011): Transient bold activity locked to perceptual reversals of auditory streaming in human auditory cortex and inferior colliculus. J Neurophysiol, 105(5), 1977–1983.

  • Shinozaki, N., Yabe, H., et al. (2003): Spectrotemporal window of integration of auditory information in the human brain. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res, 17(3), 563–571.

  • Snyder, J. S., Alain, C. (2007): Toward a neurophysiological theory of auditory stream segregation. Psychol Bull, 133, 780–799.

  • Sussman, E. (2005): Integration and segregation in auditory scene analysis. J. Acoust.Soc. Am., 117(3), 1285–1298.

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

  • Winkler, I., Denham, S. L., et al. (2009): Modeling the auditory scene: predictive regularity representations and perceptual objects. Trends Cogn Sci, 13(12), 532–540.

  • Winkler, I., Takegata, R., et al. (2005): Event-related brain potentials reveal multiple stages in the perceptual organization of sound. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res, 25(1), 291–299.

  • Yabe, H., Tervaniemi, M., et al. (1997): Temporal window of integration revealed by MMN to sound omission. Neuroreport, 8, 1971–1974.

  • Yabe, H., Winkler, I., et al. (2001): Organizing sound sequences in the human brain: the interplay of auditory streaming and temporal integration. Brain Res, 897(1–2), 222–227.

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
Jun 2021 6 0 0
Jul 2021 2 0 0
Aug 2021 5 0 0
Sep 2021 18 0 0
Oct 2021 5 0 0
Nov 2021 10 0 0
Dec 2021 7 0 0