Learning & Perception
Volume/Issue:
Volume 5: Issue supplement2
Different roles of similarity and predictability in auditory stream segregation
Authors:
Alexandra Bendixen

Search for other papers by Alexandra Bendixen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Tamás M. Bőhm

Search for other papers by Tamás M. Bőhm in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Orsolya Szalárdy Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology H-1394 Budapest P.O. Box 398 Hungary

Search for other papers by Orsolya Szalárdy in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Robert Mill University of Plymouth Cognition Institute and School of Psychology Drake Circus Plymouth PL4 8AA UK

Search for other papers by Robert Mill in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Susan L. Denham University of Plymouth Cognition Institute and School of Psychology Drake Circus Plymouth PL4 8AA UK

Search for other papers by Susan L. Denham in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
István Winkler

Search for other papers by István Winkler in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Pages:
37–54
Online Publication Date:
19 Jun 2013
Publication Date:
01 Jun 2013
Article Category:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1556/lp.5.2013.suppl2.4
Keywords:
sound perception; auditory scene analysis; streaming; auditory object formation; perceptual bi-stability; perceptual switching; primary sound features; sound patterns; higher-order sound feature; feature proximity
Restricted access

Sound sources often emit trains of discrete sounds, such as a series of footsteps. Previously, two different principles have been suggested for how the human auditory system binds discrete sounds together into perceptual units. The feature similarity principle is based on linking sounds with similar characteristics over time. The predictability principle is based on linking sounds that follow each other in a predictable manner. The present study compared the effects of these two principles. Participants were presented with tone sequences and instructed to continuously indicate whether they perceived a single coherent sequence or two concurrent streams of sound. We investigated the influence of separate manipulations of similarity and predictability on these perceptual reports. Both grouping principles affected perception of the tone sequences, albeit with different characteristics. In particular, results suggest that whereas predictability is only analyzed for the currently perceived sound organization, feature similarity is also analyzed for alternative groupings of sound. Moreover, changing similarity or predictability within an ongoing sound sequence led to markedly different dynamic effects. Taken together, these results provide evidence for different roles of similarity and predictability in auditory scene analysis, suggesting that forming auditory stream representations and competition between alternatives rely on partly different processes.

  • Akeroyd, M. A., Carlyon, R. P., Deeks, J. M. (2005): Can dichotic pitches form two streams? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 977–981.

  • Andreou, L.-V., Kashino, M., Chait, M. (2011): The role of temporal regularity in auditory segregation. Hearing Research, 280, 228–235.

  • Anstis, S., Saida, S. (1985): Adaptation to auditory streaming of frequency-modulated tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 257–271.

  • Bendixen, A., Denham, S. L., Gyimesi, K., Winkler, I. (2010): Regular patterns stabilize auditory streams. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128, 3658–3666.

  • Bendixen, A., Prinz, W., Horváth, J., Trujillo-Barreto, N. J., Schröger, E. (2008): Rapid extraction of auditory feature contingencies. Neuroimage, 41, 1111–1119.

  • Bregman, A. S. (1978): Auditory streaming is cumulative. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 380–387.

  • Bregman, A. S. (1990): Auditory scene analysis. The perceptual organization of sound. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

  • Bregman, A. S. (1993): Auditory scene analysis: Hearing in complex environments. In: McAdams, S., Bigand, E. (eds.): Thinking in Sound. The Cognitive Psychology of Human Audition. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 10–36.

  • Cusack, R., Deeks, J., Aikman, G., Carlyon, R. P. (2004): Effects of location, frequency region, and time course of selective attention on auditory scene analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 643–656.

  • Denham, S. L., Gyimesi, K., Stefanics, G., Winkler, I. (2010): Stability of perceptual organisation in auditory streaming. In: Lopez-Poveda, E. A., Palmer, A. R., Meddis, R. (eds.): The neurophysiological bases of auditory perception. Springer, New York, pp. 477­–488.

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

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

  • French-St.George, M., Bregman, A. S. (1989): Role of predictability of sequence in auditory stream segregation. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 384–386.

  • Griffiths, T. D., Warren, J. D. (2004): What is an auditory object? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 887–892.

  • 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.

  • Haywood, N. R., Roberts, B. (2010): Build-up of the tendency to segregate auditory streams: Resetting effects evoked by a single deviant tone. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128, 3019–3031.

  • Hung, J., Jones, S. J., Vaz Pato, M. (2001): Scalp potentials to pitch change in rapid tone sequences – A correlate of sequential stream segregation. Experimental Brain Research, 140, 56–65.

  • Jones, M. R. (1976): Time, our lost dimension: Toward a new theory of perception, attention, and memory. Psychological Review, 83, 323–355.

  • Jones, M. R., Boltz, M. (1989): Dynamic attending and responses to time. Psychological Review, 96, 459–491.

  • Jones, M. R., Boltz, M., Kidd, G. (1982): Controlled attending as a function of melodic and temporal context. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 211–218.

  • Jones, M. R., Kidd, G., Wetzel, R. (1981): Evidence for rhythmic attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1059–1073.

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

  • Kubovy, M., Van Valkenburg, D. (2001): Auditory and visual objects. Cognition, 80, 97–126.

  • 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, 1.1–18.

  • Müller, D., Widmann, A., Schröger, E. (2005): Auditory streaming affects the processing of successive deviant and standard sounds. Psychophysiology, 42, 668–676.

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

  • Rahne, T., Sussman, E. (2009): Neural representations of auditory input accommodate to the context in a dynamically changing acoustic environment. European Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 205–211.

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

  • Roberts, B., Glasberg, B. R., Moore, B. C. J. (2008): Effects of the build-up and resetting of auditory stream segregation on temporal discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology – Human Perception and Performance, 34, 992–1006.

  • Rogers, W. L., Bregman, A. S. (1993): An experimental evaluation of three theories of auditory stream segregation. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 179–189.

  • Rogers, W. L., Bregman, A. S. (1998): Cumulation of the tendency to segregate auditory streams: Resetting by changes in location and loudness. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1216–1227.

  • Schröger, E. (2007): Mismatch negativity: A microphone into auditory memory. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 138–146.

  • Shinozaki, N., Yabe, H., Sato, Y., Sutoh, T., Hiruma, T., Nashida, T., Kaneko, S. (2000): Mismatch negativity (MMN) reveals sound grouping in the human brain. Neuroreport, 11, 1597–1601.

  • Snyder, J. S., Alain, C., Picton, T. W. (2006): Effects of attention on neuroelectric correlates of auditory stream segregation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1–13.

  • Snyder, J. S., Carter, O. L., Hannon, E. E., Alain, C. (2009a): Adaptation reveals multiple levels of representation in auditory stream segregation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1232–1244.

  • Snyder, J. S., Holder, W. T., Weintraub, D. M., Carter, O. L., Alain, C. (2009b): Effects of prior stimulus and prior perception on neural correlates of auditory stream segregation. Psychophysiology, 46, 1208–1215.

  • Sussman, E. (2005): Integration and segregation in auditory scene analysis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 1285–1298.

  • Sussman, E., Bregman, A. S., Wang, W. J., Khan, F. J. (2005): Attentional modulation of electrophysiological activity in auditory cortex for unattended sounds within multistream auditory environments. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 93–110.

  • Sussman, E., Ritter, W., Vaughan, H. G., Jr. (1998): Attention affects the organization of auditory input associated with the mismatch negativity system. Brain Research, 789, 130–138.

  • Sussman, E., Ritter, W., Vaughan, H. G., Jr. (1999): An investigation of the auditory streaming effect using event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 36, 22–34.

  • Sussman, E., Steinschneider, M. (2006): Neurophysiological evidence for context-dependent encoding of sensory input in human auditory cortex. Brain Research, 1075, 165–174.

  • 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. Doctoral dissertation, Technical University Eindhoven.

  • 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.

  • Wertheimer, M. (1923): Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt II [Laws of organization in perceptual forms II]. Psychologische Forschung, 4, 301–350.

  • 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.

  • Winkler, I., Denham, S. L., Mill, R., Bőhm, T. M., Bendixen, A. (2012): Multistability in auditory stream segregation: A predictive coding view. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367, 1001–1012.

  • Winkler, I., Kushnerenko, E., Horváth, J., Čeponienė, R., Fellman, V., Huotilainen, M., Näätänen, R., Sussman, E. (2003a): Newborn infants can organize the auditory world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 11812–11815.

  • Winkler, I., Sussman, E., Tervaniemi, M., Horváth, J., Ritter, W., Näätänen, R. (2003b): Preattentive auditory context effects. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 57–77.

  • Winkler, I., Takegata, R., Sussman, E. (2005): Event-related brain potentials reveal multiple stages in the perceptual organization of sound. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 291­–299.

  • Winkler, I., Van Zuijen, T. L., Sussman, E., Horváth, J., Näätänen, R. (2006): Object representation in the human auditory system. European Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 625–634.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover Learning & Perception
Learning & Perception
Print ISSN:
1789-3186
Online ISSN:
2060-9175

Learning & Perception
Language English
Size  
Year of
Foundation		 2009
Publication
Programme		 ceased
Volumes
per Year		  
Issues
per Year		  
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address		 H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher		 Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1789-3186 (Print)
ISSN 2060-9175 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Oct 2024 59 0 0
Nov 2024 34 0 0
Dec 2024 14 0 0
Jan 2025 46 0 0
Feb 2025 53 0 0
Mar 2025 18 0 0
Apr 2025 0 0 0