Age-Related Changes in Auditory Temporal Perception

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY 44, 413-426 (1987)

Age-Related Changes in Auditory Temporal Perception

BARBARA A. MORRONGIELLO

University of Western Ontario

AND

SANDRA E. TREHUB

University of Toronto

The discrimination of signal and silence duration was evaluated in 6-month- old infants, $-year-old children, and adults. Listeners were tested with a conditioned-discrimination procedure in which they were presented a sequence of 18 white-noise bursts and trained to discriminate a change in duration of the middle 6 signal or silence elements. There were no differential effects on performance for changes in signal compared to silence duration. At each age, performance varied only as a function of magnitude of duration change. Infants discriminated duration changes of 20 ms or greater, children discriminated 15 ms, and adults discriminated changes as small as 10 ms. These findings are consistent with other research in revealing age-related improvements in auditory temporal perception. 9 1987 Academic Press. Inc

The processing of temporal information in audition is of fundamental importance for sound localization, rhythm perception, speech discrimination, and the detection of signals in noise. Nevertheless, there is relatively little systematic research examining the developmental course of temporal information processing. Only three aspects of auditory temporal perception have been studied developmentally: (I) auditory fusion, which refers to the perception of two successive sounds as a single acoustic event; (2) temporal order perception, in which a listener judges the temporal order

The authors thank Marilyn Barras, Donna1 Laxdal, Greg Patterson, and Patrick Rocca for help with data collection; K. J. Kim for technical assistance; Rick Robson and Bob Gardner for statistical advice; Bruce Schneider for use of his research facilities; and Leigh Thorpe for scholarly contributions. This research was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the University of Toronto. and was conducted while the first author was an affiliate of the University of Toronto. Reprints may be obtained from Barbara A. Morrongiello, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2.

413 0022X1965/87 $3 .OO

Copyright 0 1987 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

414 MORRONGIELLO AND TREHUB

of different nonoverlapping or overlapping signals; and (3) the precedence effect, which refers to a listener’s failure to detect the second of two identical sounds presented from separate spatial locations when a small onset-time difference is introduced.

Davis and McCroskey (1980) reported systematic improvement in auditory fusion abilities between 3 and 8 years of age, with adult-like performance reached by 9 years of age. For example. 3-year-olds ex- perienced a transition between the perception of one versus two events at interpulse intervals of 22 to 24 ms, 6-year-olds at I1 to 1.5 ms, and 9- year-olds at 6 to 8 ms (see also Irwin, Ball, Kay, Stillman. & Rosser, 1985). Lowe and Campbell (1965) reported that the average onset-time difference for accurate judgement of temporal order was 36.1 ms for children 7 to 14 years of age compared to 20 to 25 ms for adults (Hirsh, 1959; Hirsh & Sherrick, 1961; Pisoni, 1977). Under certain listening conditions, however, lo-week-old infants can discriminate onset-time differences of 30 ms (Jusczyk, Pisoni, Walley. & Murray, 1980). Mor- rongiello, Kulig, and Clifton (1984) reported higher thresholds for the precedence effect in infants (25 ms for click trains) compared to preschool children (12 ms for click trains, 30 ms for more spectrally complex sounds), who, in turn, had significantly higher thresholds than adults for sounds with greater spectral complexity (13 ms for click trains, 25 ms for more complex sounds).

Clearly, the research to date reveals age-related improvement in auditory temporal perception. However, each of the aforementioned phenomena involved perception of the duration of a silence interval. There has been little developmental research on the perception of signal duration, although the perception of both silence and signal duration contributes to the discrimination of speech segments (e.g., Eilers. Buli, Oiler, & Lewis. 1984; Mermelstein, 1978; Miller & Liberman, 1979) as well as rhythmic variation (Fraisse, 1978). The aim of the present research was to examine the abilities of infants, preschool children, and adults to discriminate changes in signal and silence intervals.

Research with young infants reveals sensitivity to durational aspects of auditory stimuli but the limits of this ability have not been determined. Berg (1972) found that infants as young as 6 weeks discriminated concomitant changes of 400 ms in the duration of signal and silence components of a stimulus (i.e., 800 ms on and 1200 ms off versus 400 ms on and 1600 ms off). Morrongiello (1984) found that 6- and 12-month-olds discriminated concomitant changes in duration of signal and silence components as small as 60 and 40 ms, respectively (e.g., 200 ms on and 200 ms off versus 160 ms on and 140 ms off). In a preliminary investigation of signal duration discrimination in children, McCroskey and Cory (1968) reported systematic improvement between 3 and 16 years of age. However, their task proved too difficult for children under 6 years of age and the

AUDITORY TEMPORAL PERCEPTION 415

wide range of scores for older children raises the possibility that the complexity of the task also may have affected performance at other ages.

The paucity of research on the development of duration discrimination stands in striking contrast to the considerable body of literature on adults’ perception of duration. Although much of the emphasis of this research has not been on temporal acuity per se but on determining if duration discrimination performance obeys Weber’s psychophysical law (e.g., Allan & Kristofferson, 1974; Getty, 1975), the results, nonetheless, provide estimates of duration discrimination thresholds. These threshold estimates vary across studies as a function of psychophysical test procedure, stimulus context, and duration of the standard interval, but range from approximately 10 to 25 ms for standard intervals between 150 and 400 ms (e.g., Abel, 1972; Chistovich, 1959; Creelman, 1962; Henry, 1948).

In the present investigation, observers were presented with a sequence of 18 white-noise bursts, with the durational aspects of the middle 6 bursts or intervals altered. Perceptually, this produced a change in rhythm, which is a property of sound sequences to which even young infants are sensitive (Chang & Trehub, 1977; Demany, McKenzie, & Vurpillot, 1977; Washburn & Cohen, 1984). The duration-change values chosen for study in the present research, 5 to 100 ms, spanned the range of durations used in a number of studies of adults’ temporal resolution. White noise was used as the signal in order to eliminate the confounding of loudness or spectral changes with signal duration changes (for further discussion see Morrongiello, 1984). Listeners at each age were tested with a go/no- go conditioned discrimination procedure in which they were repeatedly presented with the standard 18-burst sequence and, on experimental trials, duration changes were introduced. Head turns to the occurrence of a change in duration on change (experimental) trials were visually reinforced, whereas head turns on no-change (control) trials were recorded (i.e., false-alarm rate) but not reinforced (e.g., Eilers, Wilson, & Moore, 1977; Morrongiello, 1984; Trehub, Bull. & Thorpe, 1984).

METHOD

Subjects

The participants included 28 infants, 26 preschool children, and 25 adults; all participants were Caucasian and judged to be predominantly from middle class backgrounds. The data of 3 infants were discarded because of failure to meet a training criterion (N = 1) and failure to complete both test sessions (N = 2). The data of 1 child were discarded due to failure to complete both test sessions (N = 1). The final sample consisted of 25 infants (8 males, 17 females) approximately 6 months of age (SD = 10 days), 25 children (II males, 14 females) approximately 54 years of age (SD = 5 months), and 25 adults (12 males, 13 females)


approximately 22 years of age (SD = 6 months). Infants and preschoolers were recruited from the local community via birth announcements, posters, newspaper and television ads, etc.; adult participants were recruited from psychology courses. An interview with the participant or their parent confirmed that no participant had a cold, throat, or ear infection within three days of each test date.

Stimuli

The standard stimulus pattern consisted of a sequence of 18 white- noise bursts having an overall duration of 7000 ms. Each burst and interburst interval was 200 ms duration; bursts had a rise and decay time of 30 ms. On experimental trials, the duration of the 7th through 12th noise burst or interburst interval was decreased, resulting in an increase in tempo. During the training period, listeners received duration changes of 75, 100, and 125 ms. On trials during the testing period, the changes were 10, 15, 20, and 100 ms for infants; 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 100 ms for children: and 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 100 ms for adults. On control trials, no change in the duration of the elements was made (i.e., 0 ms change). Different duration-change values were selected for each age group based on extensive pilot tests in which we sought to determine a set of values that spanned the competency range for listeners at each age (i.e., not reliably discriminated to easily discriminated). Pilot tests revealed also that infants would tolerate only a short test session (i.e., 27 trials) in comparison to children and adults (i.e., 45 trials). Consequently, they were tested with a smaller set of duration-change values (i.e.. four) in comparison to children and adults (i.e., six). The stimuli were presented at an average sound pressure level of 65 dB-C (62 dB-A) over an ambient noise level of 46 dB-C (20 dB-A).

Apparatus

The signal was produced by a random-noise generator (General Radio, Model 1381), then passed through an electronic audio switch that shaped the rise and decay characteristics of each burst, amplified, and presented over a single loudspeaker (Radio Shack) located inside a sound-attenuating chamber (Industrial Acoustics Co.). The loudspeaker was positioned on top of a four-chamber smoked Plexiglas box that contained four different mechanical toys and lights that were used as reinforcers. Stimulus intensity was measured with an impulse precision sound-level meter equipped with a 0.5in. condenser microphone (Bruel and Kjaer, Model 2204). A microcomputer controlled the experiment and operated the equipment through a custom-built interface. A small, hand-size button box, which interfaced with the computer, allowed the experimenter to initiate trials and record responses while inside the testing chamber.


Design and Procedure

The design of the experiment consisted of two within-subjects variables, duration condition (signal, silence) and magnitude of duration change (0 to 100 ms) at each age. Each participant completed two test sessions within 2 weeks time and was randomly assigned to receive either the signal or the silence condition on the first visit.

Infants. Throughout the 20-min session, the infant sat on the parent’s lap across from an experimenter, with the loudspeaker and toy box to the infant’s right at an angle of 45”. Both the parent and the experimenter wore headphones that played music continuously to mask their detection of experimental trials. Throughout the session the experimenter was naive as to the type of trial to be presented. His or her task was to code a head turn response whenever it occurred and to call for a trial when the listener appeared ready (i.e., quiet with head centered). The goal was to operantly condition infants to turn their head toward the loudspeaker whenever they perceived a change in tempo within the auditory sequence. To this end the standard sequence was repeatedly presented with an 800- ms pause between successive presentations (i.e., 7800-ms onset to onset time). When the infant was facing forward and the standard pattern had played at least once, a trial could be initiated by the experimenter. Each infant was given approximately 4.0 s in which to respond on a trial; the response interval began at the start of the changed element and terminated with the end of the pattern. A head turn toward the signal loudspeaker that was greater than approximately 30” (i.e., a 3 facial view) was scored as a response. A correct response on a change trial, as determined by the microcomputer, resulted in activation of one of the four visual reinforcers and lights for 4 s. If the 4-s reinforcment interval extended beyond the conclusion of the test pattern then silence prevailed during this time (i.e., the 800-ms pause between successive presentations was extended until the reinforcer turned off). Immediately following the reinforcer, the standard sequence was presented again. Thus, there was never temporal overlap between presentation of the standard sequence and the visual reinforcer, which might have interfered with listeners associating the test pattern and reinforcer. In addition to change trials, listeners also received no-change or control trials in which the standard pattern continued to play and head turn responses were scored. No-change control trials provided an index of false-alarm rate. Responses on these trials were not reinforced.

During training, listeners received a maximum of 12 no-change and 12 change trials (four replications each of 75, loo-, and 125ms duration changes); trials were randomized with the constraint that there could be no more than two consecutive trials of one type (change or no-change). Each listener began training with two trials on which the task was dem-


on&rated by the experimenter (i.e., the toy was automatically delivered at the initiation of a duration change and the experimenter looked toward the toy throughout its presentation); the first was an example of the 125 ms condition and the second was of the IOO-ms condition. Following these two trials, listeners had to meet a training criterion of 5 successive correct responses (i.e., head turn on change trials and no head turn on no-change trials) within 24 trials in order to proceed to testing.

The testing procedures were the same as the training procedures with the exception that, in addition to no-change control trials on which infants were not expected to respond, there were catch trials on which there was a lOO-ms change in duration. These trials provided an index of the infant’s attention and motivation through the session and ensured that, on at least f of the trials, the infant would be capable of obtaining reinforcement. Each infant received a randomized ordering of 27 trials: 9 catch trials (lOO-ms change), 9 control trials (0-ms change), and 9 change trials (3 replications each of lo-, IS-, and 20-ms duration changes).

Children and adults. Children and adults were tested with the same procedures as for infants. They were told that they were going to play a listening game and would sometimes be able to see toys. As well, we pointed out the importance of not talking so that they could listen carefully. Trials were initiated by the experimenter when the observer appeared ready to listen (i.e., quiet with head centered). As for infants, head turns toward the signal loudspeaker on change trials were coded as correct responses and were visually reinforced. Head turn responses on no- change trials were recorded but not reinforced. The response interval (4.0 s), reinforcement conditions (mechanical toys), and training phase (5 successive correct responses needed) were identical to those reported for infants. During the test phase, each child and adult received a randomized ordering of 45 trials: 15 catch trials (lOO-ms change), 15 control (0-ms change), and 15 change trials (3 replications each of the five duration change conditions), with a session lasting approximately 20 min.

RESULTS

Responses in each condition were converted to proportion scores and parametric statistics were applied. Listeners at each age quickly learned the task contingencies: Infants met the training criterion in 9 trials, children in 10 trials, and adults in 9 trials. Moreover, there were no systematic changes in performance over trials at any age. An analysis of variance with condition (signal, silence), magnitude of duration change, and trials as repeated-measures factors was performed on the data at each age. Results did not reveal any significant main or interaction effects involving the trials factor (p’s > .05). Thus, differences in discrimination performance as a function of duration magnitude were not related to systematic changes in motivation or attention during the session.


Within-age analyses. Because listeners at each age were tested under different magnitude conditions, the data at each age initially were analyzed separately. At each age, an analysis of variance was performed on the proportion scores (see Table I), with repeated measurements on condition (signal, silence) and magnitude of duration change. In each analysis, performance on catch trials (i.e., lOO-ms condition), which approached ceiling at each age, was excluded. A test to examine homogeneity of variances also was performed on the data at each age, since the estimate of false-alarm rate (i.e., 0-ms condition) was based on more trials than estimates of performance in experimental conditions. Finally, because of unequal iV in the assignment of subjects to receive the signal versus silence condition first (N = 12 for one order and 13 for the other), this factor was not entered into any analyses of variance. Nonetheless, at each age, correlated t tests were performed to examine the difference between the mean performance levels of subjects receiving the signal condition first in comparison to those who received it second (similarly for the silence condition); to limit the number of these analyses we collapsed over magnitude of duration condition since inspection of the individual cell data suggested no interactive effects of this variable. Results revealed no significant differences in mean performance levels, at any age, as a function of the order of duration condition subjects received (p’s > .05).

For 6-month-olds, responding varied only as a function of magnitude of duration change, F(3,72) = 5 1.23, p < .OOl . and there was no evidence of significant heterogeneity of variance across conditions. As can be seen in Table 1, infants responded to the 0-ms control condition about 27% of the time. One-tailed Bonferroni t tests (Myers, 1979) revealed that performance to the lo- and IS-ms changes did not differ from this false alarm rate Q’s > .05); one-tailed tests were performed since it was expected that the rate of false positives would be invariant across duration conditions if subjects failed to discriminate the duration changes. The incidence of responding to the 20-ms change (55%) was significantly greater than that shown to the 0-, IO-, and IS-ms changes, t(24) = 6.34, 5.90, 5.68, respectively, p’s < .Ol. Responding was greatest for the 100- ms catch trials (87%), and this was significantly greater than that shown for the 20-ms condition, t(24) = 6.17, p < .Ol. In summary, infants’ ability to discriminate duration changes did not vary as a function of whether the signal or silence components were altered, and they reliably discriminated duration changes of at least 20 ms.

For preschool children, magnitude of duration change also was the only factor that significantly influenced performance, F(5, 120) = 48.72, p < -001 with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction for heterogeneity of variances (i.e., & = 1, 24). Performance was unaffected by the occurrence of change in signal or silence components of the sequence. As can be

R

0

TABL

E 1

PROW

RTIO

N O

F RE

SWNS

ES

FOR

EACH

CO

NDIT

ION

AND

DURA

TION

CH

ANGE

(M

ILLIS

ECON

DS)

FOR

EACH

AG

E GR

OUP”

,.

~.-~

.-

Sign

al

Sile

nce

_~..

Age

0 5

10

I5

20

25

30

100

0 5

-- ~_

___

_~~

Infa

nts

.26

- .2

8 .3

1 .5

7 -

.87

.28

c.16

) -

C.1

9)

(.28)

(.2

0)

- -

(.lO

) (.1

5)

-

Chi

ldre

n .I7

-

.20

.49

.61

.72

.95

.98

.I6

- c.

16)

- (.2

5)

(.?I)

(.31)

t.2

8)

(.13)

c.

08)

(.I41

-

Adul

ts

.I8

.20

.51

.58

.76

.87

- .9

9 .I7

.2

4 c.

18)

C.3

0)

C.2

9)

C.3

4)

C.2

5)

C.2

2)

- C

.09)

(.I

51

(.24)

Nvf

e: T

he

num

bers

in

par

enth

eses

ar

e th

e st

anda

rd

devi

atio

ns.

“Som

e ce

lls a

re e

mpt

y be

caus

e lis

tene

rs

at e

ach

age

were

te

sted

und

er

diffe

rent

co

nditi

ons.

IO

I5

20

25

30

~-~-

. _.

. .2

6 .3

5 .5

3 (.2

1)

C.2

4)

C.2

2)

- -

.22

,411

.5

6 .7

0 .9

3 C

.29)

(.

20)

C.3

4)

(28)

C

.14)

.53

.60

.7l

.85

- c.

32)

C.3

3)

(.?O

) (.2

2)

-

100

.87

C.0

9)

.98

c.08

)

.99

t.08)


seen in Table 1, the incidence of false-alarm responses to the 0-ms control condition was 16%. Bonferroni t tests (one-tailed) confirmed that performance to the lO-ms condition was at chance (p > .05), whereas children responded reliably above chance level for duration changes of at least 15 ms (p’s < .05); it should be noted, since there was heterogeneity of variance, that correlated t tests (i.e., separate variance estimates) yielded the same conclusions. Furthermore, there was a reliable increasing linear trend in perfomance with increments in the magnitude of duration change between 10 and 30 ms (2 = 4.77, p < .Ol; see Snedecor & Cochran, 1980, pp. 206-208, for a discussion of this statistic). Thus, preschool children, like 6month-olds, showed comparable discrimination performance for signal and silence duration. In contrast to the infants, however, children reliably discriminated duration changes as small as 15 ms.

Adults showed a pattern of results similar to that for infants and children. Performance varied only as a function of magnitude of duration change, F(5, 120) = 69.70, p < .OOl with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction for heterogeneity of variances (i.e., df = 1, 24). As can be seen in Table 1, the incidence of chance responding to the 0-ms control was about 18%, which did not differ significantly from responding to the 5- ms change, 22% (p > .05). Both Bonferroni and correlated t tests (one- tailed) indicated that adults responded above chance levels for duration changes of at least 10 ms (p’s < .OS). In addition, like the children, they showed a systematic linear increase in responding as the magnitude of duration change increased between 5 and 25 ms (Z = 4.19, p < .Ol).

Between-age analyses. In order to compare duration discrimination performance across age, we examined performance on the duration change values that were common to all ages-namely, 0, 10, 15, 20, and 100 ms. An analysis of variance was performed with age (3) as a between- subjects factor and condition (2) and magnitude of duration change (5) as within-subjects factors. Tests for heterogeneity of variance and covariance also were applied (see Myers, 1979; Winer, 1971). The results indicated that performance varied with age (F(2, 72) = 5.62, p < .Ol) and magnitude of duration change (F(4, 288) = 100.66, p < .OOl). Most importantly, infants, children, and adults differed in the incidence of responses to the 0-, lo-, 15-, 20-, and lOO-ms changes, F(8, 288) = 5.90, p < .Ol; each reported F value was significant at the probability value indicated even after Greenhouse-Geisser adjustments were applied to correct for significant heterogeneity of variance and covariance.

Pairwise contrasts (two-tailed) revealed that the incidence of responding to the 0-ms control was comparable for infants (27%), children (16%), and adults (17%), all p’s > .05. For the IO-ms change, which neither infants nor children discriminated reliably, there was no significant difference in the incidence of responding between these ages (p > .05), but


the performance of both infants (27%) and children (21%) was significantly less than that of adults (52%) t(48) = 2.48, 2,70, respectively, p’s < .05. For the Sms change, the incidence of responding by infants (33%) was significantly less than that shown by adults (59%), t(48) = 2.19, p < .05. The children’s performance, which exceeded chance, fell at an intermediate level (48%) but did not significantly differ from infants’ @ > .05) or adults’ performance (p > .05). For the 20-ms change, there was no significant difference in the incidence of responding by infants (55%) in comparison to children (58%), and children in comparison to adults (73%), p’s > .05. However, infants responded at significantly lower levels in comparison to adults, t(48) = 2.18, p -=z .05. For the lOO-ms catch trials, which provided an index of attention and motivation throughout the test session, listeners at all ages responded at very high levels. The performance of children (98%) and adults (99%) approached ceiling and did not differ significantly (p > .05). Infants responded on 87% of these trials, which was significantly less than the nearly perfect performance shown by children and adults, t(48) = 3.14, 3.33, respectively, p’s < .Ol.

DISCUSSION

The present findings reveal systematic improvement in auditory temporal perception between infancy, early childhood, and adulthood. For infants, reliable discrimination was only observed for duration changes of at least 20 ms. In contrast, children detected duration changes of 15 ms and adults discriminated duration differences as small as 10 ms. Since there were no age differences in learning the same task with the same procedures, and motivation and attention (as indexed by performance on catch trials) were consistently high across age, it seems unlikely that the observed performance differences across age related to these nonauditory factors. Rather, consistent with previous reports, the data suggest that there are true age differences in auditory temporal perception skills.

The fact that performance did not vary at any age as a function of whether signal or silence intervals were manipulated has implications for the perception of speech. These findings suggest that listeners might be equally good at discriminating phonemes whose identity is cued by the duration of steady-state components (e.g., many vowels), and those cued by silence components (e.g., stop consonants). Furthermore, 6-month- olds’ discrimination of small changes in signal duration suggests that they could, in principle, make adjustments for the rate of articulation of a speaker in their perception of speech, as is the case for adults (Eimas & Miller, 1980; Miller & Liberman, 1979; but see Jusczyk, Pisoni, Reed, Fernald, & Myers, 1983; Pisoni, Carrell, & Gans, 1983).

An earlier study of listeners’ ability to detect binaural-temporal differences that contribute to perception of the precedence effect revealed


age-related improvements between infants, preschoolers, and adults in the ability to resolve these binaural-temporal differences (Morrongiello et al., 1984). In the present study, although we used diotic presentation (i.e., the same signal to the two ears), the task does not necessitate binaural processing but can be accomplished monaurally (i.e., a homophasic rather than an antiphasic signal). Thus, the present study can be viewed as measuring monaural-temporal resolution, and it is the fn-st to do so with young infants. The study of another monaural phenomenon, auditory fusion, also has revealed an extended developmental course, with adult- like temporal perception not emerging until approximately 9 to 10 years of age (Davis & McCroskey, 1980; Irwin et al., 1985). Taken together, these findings suggest that there may be a common mechanism contributing to age-related changes in the processing of monaural- and binaural-temporal information. Although one cannot dismiss the importance of perceptual learning and experience to the observed age-related improvements in performance, biological factors also may play a significant role. Given the extended period of development for temporal resolution and the auditory-developmental course from peripheral to central structures (Hecox, 1975), it is possible that the mechanism in question is central in origin or involves a general structural change in the nervous system. One possibility is myelination of the auditory system, which continues during childhood (Yakovlev & Lecours, 1967) and is known to affect auditory processing. For example, research on patients with multiple sclerosis, a progressive disease that results in demyelination of the central nervous system, reveals changes in their auditory processing capacities when lesions involve pathways of the central auditory system (Noffsinger, Olsen, Carhart, Hart, & Sahgal, 1972). Whatever the mechanism responsible for age-related improvements in auditory temporal perception, this study substantiates other research indicating a protracted course of development of these capacities.

Tests that examine the temporal integrity of the auditory system also have practical applications. Research with adults indicates that deficits in auditory temporal resolution correlate with other problems in hearing and speech perception (e.g., Fitzgibbons & Wightman, 1982; Irwin, Hinchcliff, & Kemp, 1981; Irwin & McAuley, 1987; Irwin & Purdy, 1982; Zwicker & Schorn, 1982). Tests of auditory temporal perception may help, too, in differentiating cortical from subcortical lesions of the auditory system. Several studies with nonhuman animals indicate that lesions to the auditory cortex result in the inability to discriminate changes in duration and temporal order of elements (e.g., Diamond & Neff, 1957; Neff, 1960; Scharlock, Neff, & Strominger, 1965) coupled with intact ability to discriminte changes in nontemporal aspects (e.g., frequency, intensity) of a stimulus (e.g., Butler, Diamond, & Neff, 1957; Oesterreich, Strominger. & Neff, 1971). Parallels in site of lesion effects have been


reported for human listeners. Lackner and Teuber (1973) reported that damage to the left cerebral cortex resulted in auditory fusion thresholds that were elevated in comparison to those of cortically intact adults (see also Hochster & Kelly, 1981). Deficits in temporal-order discrimination following cortical damage also have been reported for adults (Lackner, 1982; Swisher, & Hirsch, 1972). Consistent with these findings are neu- rophysiological studies revealing cortical cells specialized for detection of temporal features such as repetition rate, duration, and the coding of binaural-temporal differences (Brugge, Dubrovsky, Aitkin, & Anderson, 1969; Brugge & Merzenich, 1973).

Temporal processing tests can help to determine whether auditory temporal dysfunctions are contributing to a child’s learning problems. McCroskey and Kidder (1980) reported differences between learning- disabled and normal children in auditory fusion, with learning-disabled children showing poorer temporal resolution and experiencing fusion over longer intervals than normal children. Tallal and her colleagues have shown, too, that language-disabled children often have difhculty processing temporal aspects of rapidly presented auditory sequences and that comprehension improves when the temporal processing requirements are minimized (Tallal & Newcombe, 1978; Tallal & Piercy, 1973, 1974).

The discrimination of signal and silence duration represents another aspect of auditory temporal perception that merits evaluation in the examination of learning- and language-disabled children. Developmental investigations such as the present one can provide a baseline against which clinical disturbances in auditory processing can be evaluated.

REFERENCES

Abel, S. (1972). Duration discrimination of noise and tone bursts. Joarnal of The Acoustical Society of America, 51, 1219-1223.

Allan, L.. & Kristofferson. A. B. (1974). Psychophysical theories of duration discrimination. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 26-34.

Berg. W. K. (1972). Habituation and dishabituation of cardiac responses in 4-month-old alert infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 14, 92-107.

Brugge, J.. Dubrovsky. N., Aitkin, L.. &Anderson, D. (1969). Sensitivity of single neurons in auditory cortex of cat to binaural tone stimulation: Effects of varying interaural time and intensity. Journul of Neurophysiology. 32, 1005-1024.

Brugge, J., & Merzenich, M. (1973). Responses of neurons in auditory cortex of macaque monkeys to monaural and binaural stimulation. Journal ofNeurophysio/ogy. 36, 1138- 1158.

Butler, R., Diamond. I., & Neff, W. (1957). Role of auditory cortex in discrimination of changes in frequency. Journal of Neurophysiology, 20, 108-120.

Chang, H., & Trehub, S. (1977). Infants’ perception of temporal grouping in auditory patterns. Child Development. 48, 1666-1670.

Chistovich. L. (1959). Discrimination of the time interval between two short acoustic pulses. Soviet Physics-Acoustics, 5, 480-484.

Creelman. C. (1962). Human discrimination of auditory duration. Journal ofthe Acoustical Society of America, 34, 582-593.


Davis, S., & McCroskey, R. (1980). Auditory fusion in children. Child Developmenf, 51, 75-80.

Demany, L., McKenzie, B., & Vurpillot, E. (1977). Rhythm perception in early infancy. Nature (London), 266, 718-719.

Diamond, I., & Neff, W. (1957). Ablation of temporal cortex and discrimination of auditory patterns. Journal of Neurophysiology, 20, 300-315.

Eilers, R., Bull, D., Oller, D. K., & Lewis, D. (1984). The discrimination of vowel duration by infants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 15, 1213-1218.

Eilers, R., Wilson, W., & Moore, J. (1977). Developmental changes in speech discrimination. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 20, 766-780.

Eimas, P., & Miller, J. (1980). Contextual effects in infant speech perception. Science,

209, 1114. Fitzgibbons, P. J., & Wightman, F. L. (1982). Gap detection in normal and hearing-impaired

listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72, 761-765. Fraisse, P. (1978). Time and rhythm perception. In E. Carterette & M. Friedman (Eds.),

Handbook of perception (Vol. VII, pp. 203-254). New York: Academic Press. Getty, D. (1975). Discrimination of short temporal intervals: A comparison of two models.

Perception and Psychophysics, 18, l-8. Hecox, K. (1975). Electrophysiological correlates of human auditory development. In

L. B. Cohen & P. Salapatek (Eds.), Infant perception: From sensation to cognition (Vol. 2, pp. l-43). New York: Academic Press.

Henry, F. (1948). Discrimination of the duration of a sound. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 38, 734-743. Hirsh, I. (1959). Auditory perception of temporal order. Journal of the Acoustical Society

of America, 31, 159-166. Hirsh, I., & Sherrick, C. (1961). Perceived order in different sense modalities. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 62, 423-432.

Hochster, M., & Kelly, J. (1981). The precedence effect and sound localization by children with temporal lobe epilepsy. Neuropsychologia, 19, 49-55.

Irwin, J., Ball, A., Kay, N., Stillman. J., & Rosser, J. (1985). The development of auditory temporal acuity in children. Chi/d Development, 56, 614-620.

Irwin, R. J., Hinchcliff, L., & Kemp, S. (1981). Temporal acuity in normal and hearing- impaired listeners. Audiology, 20, 234-243.

Irwin, R. J., & McAuley. S. F. (1987). Relations among temporal acuity, hearing loss, and the perception of speech distorted by noise and reverberation. Journal of The Acoustical Society of America, 81, 1557-1565.

Irwin, R. J., & Purdy, S. C. (1982). The minimum detectable duration of auditory signals for normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71, 967-974.

Jusczyk, P., Pisoni, D.. Reed, M., Fernald, A., & Myers, M. (1983). Infants’ discrimination of the duration of rapid spectrum changes in nonspeech signals. Science, 222, 175- 177.

Jusczyk, P., Pisoni, D., Walley, A., & Murray, J. (1980). Discrimination of relative onset time of two-component tones by infants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 262-270.

Lackner, J. (1982). Alterations in resolution of temporal order after cerebral injury in man. Experimental Neurology, 75, 501-509.

Lackner, J., & Teuber, H. (1973). Alterations in auditory fusion thresholds after cerebral injury in man. Neuropsychologia, 11, 409-415.

Lowe, A., & Campbell, R. (1965). Temporal discrimination in aphasoid and normal children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 8, 313-316.

McCroskey. R., & Cory, M. (1968, November). Auditory duration discrimination according


to age. Paper presented at the American Speech and Hearing Association Convention, Denver, CO.

McCroskey, R., & Kidder, H. (1980). Auditory fusion among learning disabled, reading disabled, and normal children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 18-25.

Mermelstein, P. (1978). On the relationship between vowel and consonant identification when cued by the same acoustic information. Perception and Psychophysics, 23, 331- 336.

Miller, J., & Liberman, A. (1979). Some effects of later-occurring information on the perception of stop consonant and semivowel. Perception and Psychophysics, 25,457- 465.

Morrongiello, B. A. (1984). Auditory temporal pattern perception in 6- and 12-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 20, 441-448.

Morrongiello, B. A., Kulig, J., & Clifton, R. (1984). Developmental changes in auditory temporal perception. Child Development, 55, 461-471.

Myers. J. (1979). Fundamentals of experimental design (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Neff, W. (1960). Role of auditory cortex in sound discrimination. In G. Rasmussen &

W. Windle (Eds.), Neural mechanisms of the auditory and vestibular systems (pp. 21 I-216). Chicago: Thomas.

Noffsinger, D., Olsen, W., Carhart, R., Hart, C., & Sahgal, V. (1972). Auditory and vestibular aberrations in multiple sclerosis. Acta Orolaryngologica, 303, 5-63.

Oesterreich, R., Strominger, N.. & Neff, W. (1971). Neural structures mediating differential sound intensity discrimination in the cat. Brain Research, 27, 251-270.

Pisoni, D. (1977). Identification and discrimination of the relative onset times of two component tones: Implications for voicing perception in stops. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 13.52-1361.

Pisoni, D., Carrel!, T., & Cans, T. (1983). Perception of the duration of rapid spectrum changes in speech and nonspeech signals. Perception and Psychophysics, 34, 314- 322.

Scharlock, D., Neff, W., & Strominger, N. (1965). Discrimination of tone duration after bilateral ablation of cortical auditory areas. Journal of Neurophysiology, 28, 673-681.

Snedecor, G., & Cochran, W. (1980). Statistical methods (7 ed.). Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press.

Swisher, L., & Hirsh, I. (1972). Brain damage and the ordering of two temporally successive stimuli. Neuropsychologia. 10, 137-152.

Tallal, P., & Newcombe, N. (1978). Impairment of auditory perception and language comprehension in dysphasia. Brain and Language, 5, 13-24.

Tallal, P., & Piercy, M. (1973). Developmental aphasia: Impaired rate of non-verbal processing as a function of sensory modality. Neuropsychologia, 11, 389-398.

Tallal, P., & Piercy, M. (1974). Developmental aphasia: Rate of auditory processing and selective impairment of consonant perception, Neuropsychologia, 12, 83-93.

Trehub, S. E.. Bull, D., & Thorpe, L. A. (1984). Infants’ perception of melodies: The role of melodic contour. Child Development, 55, 821-830.

Washburn, K., & Cohen, L. (1984, April). Infant perception of rhythmic form. Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies, New York.

Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Yakovlev, P., & Lecours, A. (1967). The myelogenetic cycles of regional maturation of the brain. In A. Minkowski (Ed.), Regional development of the brain in early life (pp. 3-70). Philadelphia: Davis.

Zwicker, E., & Schorn, K. (1982). Temporal resolution in hard-of-hearing patients. Audiology, 21, 474-492.

RECEIVED: February 5, 1987; REVISED July 6. 1987.

Age-Related Changes in Auditory Temporal Perception

Documents

Transcript of Age-Related Changes in Auditory Temporal Perception