A comparison of methods for investigating the perceptual center of musical sounds

In speech and music, the acoustic and perceptual onset(s) of a sound are usually not congruent with its perceived temporal location. Rather, these "P-centers" are heard some milliseconds after the acoustic onset, and a variety of techniques have been used in speech and music research to fi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Code, D.L (Author), Danielsen, A. (Author), Langerød, M.T (Author), London, J. (Author), Nymoen, K. (Author), Thompson, M.R (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Springer New York LLC 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:View Fulltext in Publisher
LEADER 03210nam a2200601Ia 4500
001 10.3758-s13414-019-01747-y
008 220511s2019 CNT 000 0 und d
020 |a 19433921 (ISSN) 
245 1 0 |a A comparison of methods for investigating the perceptual center of musical sounds 
260 0 |b Springer New York LLC  |c 2019 
856 |z View Fulltext in Publisher  |u https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01747-y 
520 3 |a In speech and music, the acoustic and perceptual onset(s) of a sound are usually not congruent with its perceived temporal location. Rather, these "P-centers" are heard some milliseconds after the acoustic onset, and a variety of techniques have been used in speech and music research to find them. Here we report on a comparative study that uses various forms of the method of adjustment (aligning a click or filtered noise in-phase or anti-phase to a repeated target sound), as well as tapping in synchrony with a repeated target sound. The advantages and disadvantages of each method and probe type are discussed, and then all methods are tested using a set of musical instrument sounds that systematically vary in terms of onset/rise time (fast vs. slow), duration (short vs. long), and center frequency (high vs. low). For each method, the dependent variables were (a) the mean P-center location found for each stimulus type, and (b) the variability of the mean P-center location found for each stimulus type. Interactions between methods and stimulus categories were also assessed. We show that (a) in-phase and anti-phase methods of adjustment produce nearly identical results, (b) tapping vs. click alignment can provide different yet useful information regarding P-center locations, (c) the method of adjustment is sensitive to different sounds in terms of variability while tapping is not, and (d) using filtered noise as an alignment probe yields consistently earlier probe-onset locations in comparison to using a click as a probe. © 2019, The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 
650 0 4 |a Acoustic Stimulation 
650 0 4 |a acoustics 
650 0 4 |a Acoustics 
650 0 4 |a Alignment task 
650 0 4 |a Auditory Perception 
650 0 4 |a auditory stimulation 
650 0 4 |a comparative study 
650 0 4 |a female 
650 0 4 |a Female 
650 0 4 |a hearing 
650 0 4 |a human 
650 0 4 |a Humans 
650 0 4 |a male 
650 0 4 |a Male 
650 0 4 |a Microtiming 
650 0 4 |a music 
650 0 4 |a Music 
650 0 4 |a Music cognition 
650 0 4 |a Negative mean asynchrony 
650 0 4 |a P-center 
650 0 4 |a physiology 
650 0 4 |a procedures 
650 0 4 |a Psychoacoustics 
650 0 4 |a psychology 
650 0 4 |a Rhythm 
650 0 4 |a sound 
650 0 4 |a Sound 
650 0 4 |a Sound recognition 
650 0 4 |a Tapping task 
650 0 4 |a Temporal processing 
650 0 4 |a time perception 
650 0 4 |a Time Perception 
650 0 4 |a young adult 
650 0 4 |a Young Adult 
700 1 |a Code, D.L.  |e author 
700 1 |a Danielsen, A.  |e author 
700 1 |a Langerød, M.T.  |e author 
700 1 |a London, J.  |e author 
700 1 |a Nymoen, K.  |e author 
700 1 |a Thompson, M.R.  |e author 
773 |t Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics