Perceptual Learning on Melodic Palindromes: Evidence That Timbre Affects Pitch Memory
1
Perceptual Learning on Melodic Palindromes: Evidence That Timbre Affects Pitch Memory Nestor Matthews 1 , Kristin M. Reardon 1&2 , & Obiageli Uguru 1 Department of Psychology, Denison University 1 , The College of William & Mary 2 People with no musical training can identify the original musical key of popular tunes with precision 1 . To what extent does this ability depend on timbre- the subjective quality of sound that is cued by acoustic transients 2 ? Here we explored the role of timbre in pitch memory by using melodic palindromes. Eighteen Denison University undergraduates each completed one pre-training session, five training sessions, and one post-training session. During the pre-training, participants learned to distinguish two melodic palindromes from each other. Palindrome A (1-7-4-4-7-1) was in the key of E major, while Palindrome B (1-7-5-5-7-1) was in the key of A-flat major. Subsequently, participants listened to pitch-shifted versions of the two palindromes, and judged each such variation to be either sharper or flatter than the original. Half the stimuli were played forward, and half were played backward, randomly. Reversing the direction of play altered the micro-acoustic structure (the pattern of ‘ramps’ and ‘damps’) Results Discussion In principle, the ability to identify a song’s original musical key could be based solely on melodic interval. However, our finding that a significant portion of the practice effects was specific to the trained micro-acoustic structure suggests that timbre plays a significant role in generating precise pitch memories. Method Introduction Acoustica lly Forward Before training, pitch memory was equally precise for acoustically forward and acoustically backward melodic palindromes (F(1,17) = 1.882, p=.188, n.s., partial eta- squared = 0.10). However, after training exclusively for five days on acoustically forward palindromes, precision was significantly greater for forward- played than for backward-played palindromes (F(1,17) = 37.558, p <0.001, partial eta squared = 0.688). Indeed, the training (pre versus post) by timbre (forward versus backward) interaction was significant ( F(1,17) = 21.996 p <0.001, partial eta squared = 0.564). It should be noted, though, that significant learning also occurred on the non-trained (i.e., acoustically backward) timbre (F(1,17) = 28.536, p <0.001, partial eta squared = 0.627). Thus the practice effects had both a timbre-independent and a timbre- specific component. References 1.Schellenberg & Trehub (2003) PMID: 12741751 2. Thayer, R.J. (1974). The effect of the attack transient on aural recognition of instrumental timbres. Psychology of Music, 2, 39-52. http://www.denison.edu/~matthewsn/percetpuallearningmusicalkeyepa2009.html Poster #24 M elodic Palindrom es 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Pre-Training Post-Training Training P itch M em o ry (d A coustically Forw ard A coustically B ackw ard M elodic P alindrom es 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Pre-Training Post-Training Training 75% Pitch M em ory Threshold (C ents) AcousticallyForw ard AcousticallyBackw ard Acoustica lly Backward Palindrome A Palindrome B T raining D ay 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250 D e lta C e n ts "Sharper" M elody A Forw ard M elody B Forw ard T raining D ay 2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250 D e lta C e n ts "Sharper" M elody A Forw ard M elody B Forw ard T raining D ay 3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250 D e lta C e n ts "Sharper" M elody A Forw ard M elody B Forw ard T raining D ay 4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250 D e lta C e n ts "Sharper" M elody A Forw ard M elody B Forw ard T raining D ay 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250 D e lta C e n ts "Sharper" M elody A Forw ard M elody B Forw ard Pre versus Post Thresholds Across Training Sessions Sensitivity Across Training Pre versus Post * * T raining D ay 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 50 100 150 200 250 D e lta C e n ts D Prim e M elody A Forw ard M elody B Forw ard T raining D ay 3 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 50 100 150 200 250 D e lta C e n ts D Prim e M elody A Forw ard M elody B Forw ard T raining D ay 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 50 100 150 200 250 D e lta C e n ts D Prim e M elody A Forw ard M elody B Forw ard T raining D ay 5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 50 100 150 200 250 D e lta C e n ts D Prim e M elody A Forw ard M elody B Forw ard T raining D ay 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 50 100 150 200 250 D e lta C ents D Prim e M elody A Forw ard M elody B Forw ard
description
Perceptual Learning on Melodic Palindromes: Evidence That Timbre Affects Pitch Memory. Nestor Matthews 1 , Kristin M. Reardon 1&2 , & Obiageli Uguru 1. Department of Psychology, Denison University 1 , The College of William & Mary 2. Poster #24. Results. Introduction. Palindrome A. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Perceptual Learning on Melodic Palindromes: Evidence That Timbre Affects Pitch Memory
Perceptual Learning on Melodic Palindromes: Evidence That Timbre Affects Pitch MemoryNestor Matthews1, Kristin M. Reardon1&2, & Obiageli Uguru1
Department of Psychology, Denison University1, The College of William & Mary2
People with no musical training can identify the original musical key of popular tunes with precision1. To what extent does this ability depend on timbre- the subjective quality of sound that is cued by acoustic transients2? Here we explored the role of timbre in pitch memory by using melodic palindromes.
Eighteen Denison University undergraduates each completed one pre-training session, five training sessions, and one post-training session. During the pre-training, participants learned to distinguish two melodic palindromes from each other. Palindrome A (1-7-4-4-7-1) was in the key of E major, while Palindrome B (1-7-5-5-7-1) was in the key of A-flat major. Subsequently, participants listened to pitch-shifted versions of the two palindromes, and judged each such variation to be either sharper or flatter than the original. Half the stimuli were played forward, and half were played backward, randomly. Reversing the direction of play altered the micro-acoustic structure (the pattern of ‘ramps’ and ‘damps’) and hence, the timbre. During the five training sessions, only forward versions were played. Finally, the post-training session was identical to the pre-training session; both forward and backward versions of the palindromes were tested.
Results
DiscussionIn principle, the ability to identify a song’s original musical key could be based solely on melodic interval. However, our finding that a significant portion of the practice effects was specific to the trained micro-acoustic structure suggests that timbre plays a significant role in generating precise pitch memories.
Method
Introduction
Acoustically Forward
Before training, pitch memory was equally precise for acoustically forward and acoustically backward melodic palindromes (F(1,17) = 1.882, p=.188, n.s., partial eta-squared = 0.10). However, after training exclusively for five days on acoustically forward palindromes, precision was significantly greater for forward-played than for backward-played palindromes (F(1,17) = 37.558, p <0.001, partial eta squared = 0.688). Indeed, the training (pre versus post) by timbre (forward versus backward) interaction was significant ( F(1,17) = 21.996 p <0.001, partial eta squared = 0.564). It should be noted, though, that significant learning also occurred on the non-trained (i.e., acoustically backward) timbre (F(1,17) = 28.536, p <0.001, partial eta squared = 0.627). Thus the practice effects had both a timbre-independent and a timbre-specific component.
References 1.Schellenberg & Trehub (2003) PMID: 12741751
2. Thayer, R.J. (1974). The effect of the attack transient on aural recognition of
instrumental timbres. Psychology of Music, 2, 39-52. http://www.denison.edu/~matthewsn/percetpuallearningmusicalkeyepa2009.html
Poster #24
Melodic Palindromes
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Pre-Training Post-Training
Training
Pit
ch
Mem
ory
(d
')
Acoustically Forward
Acoustically Backward
Melodic Palindromes
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Pre-Training Post-Training
Training
75%
Pit
ch M
emo
ry T
hre
sho
ld (
Cen
ts)
Acoustically Forward
Acoustically Backward
Acoustically Backward
Palindrome A Palindrome B
Tr aining Day 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250
D el ta C ents
"Sha
rper
"
Melody A For war d
Melody B For war d
Tr aining Day 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250
D el ta C ents
"Sh
arp
er"
Melody A For war d
Melody B For war d
Tr aining Day 3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250
D el ta C ents
"Sh
arp
er"
Melody A For war d
Melody B For war d
Tr aining Day 4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250
D el ta C ents
"Sh
arp
er"
Melody A For war d
Melody B For war d
Tr aining Day 5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 100 150 200 250
D el ta C ents
"Sh
arp
er"
Melody A For war d
Melody B For war d
Pre versus PostThresholds Across Training Sessions
Sensitivity Across Training Sessions Pre versus Post
*
*
Tr aining Day 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
50 100 150 200 250
D el ta C ents
D P
rim
e
Melody A For war d
Melody B For war d
Tr aining Day 3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
50 100 150 200 250
D el ta C ents
D P
rim
e
Melody A For war d
Melody B For war d
Tr aining Day 4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
50 100 150 200 250
D el ta C ents
D P
rim
e
Melody A For war d
Melody B For war d
Tr aining Day 5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
50 100 150 200 250
D el ta C ents
D P
rim
e
Melody A For war d
Melody B For war d
Tr aining Day 2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
50 100 150 200 250
D el ta C ents
D P
rim
e
Melody A For war d
Melody B For war d
