Temporal Auditory Processing in Infancy · listeners can use absolute cues to guide performance....

Temporal Auditory Processing in Infancy

SANDRA E. TREHUB Centre for Research in Human Development

University of Toronto Erindale Campus

Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 1 C6

INTRODUCTION

One of the most intriguing aspects of our perceptual system is its ability to derive relatively accurate and useful percepts of the world from sensory information, particularly when such information underspecifies the distal stimulus.' In such situations, organizing processes necessarily play a prominent role. Perceptual organization in the temporal domain is particularly critical because most, if not all, mean- ingful auditory signals undergo change over time. Nevertheless, research on auditory development in general and on temporal auditory processing in particular tends to focus on the perception of relatively simple stimuli, mostly single, unchanging sounds.

TEMPORAL RESOLUTION

The pulselike nature of natural sounds in the environment has drawn attention to the need to distinguish continuous signals from interrupted signals, or those with gaps. In the typical study of gap detection, the experimenter attempts to determine the minimum silent interval necessary for an adult or child to report hearing two sounds rather than 0ne.~3~ In the only investigation of this phenomenon with infants, Lynne Werner and her associates4 had 3-month-olds, 6-month-olds, and 12-month- olds discriminate interrupted from uninterrupted broad-band noise. The minimum detectable gap, or gap-detection threshold, was considerably larger for infants than for adults. Although there were suggestions of minor improvement in temporal resolution for 12-month-olds, such improvement likely continues until at least 6 years of age.3,5

A related ability is auditory fusion, or the perception of two successive repetitions of the same waveform as a single sound. If such fusion did not regularly occur, we would hear many more separate echoes in enclosed spaces than we actually do. It is only when the repetition follows the original sound by 30 rns or more that we hear such echoes.6As is the case with gap detection, auditory fusion has a prolonged developmental course, with improvement still evident at 9 years of age.7

Another echo-suppression phenomenon that has been investigated developmen- tally is the precedence effect.* When two identical sounds are presented from different locations, with one sound delayed relative to the other, listeners hear a single sound emanating from the leading loudspeaker. Perception of the lagging sound is suppressed until the delay between sounds is somewhere between 4 and 40 ms, depending on the nature of stimulation, beyond which sounds are localized at their

137

138 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

true 10cations.R.~ To place this finding in context, one must understand that adults detect much shorter onset-time differences when the sounds originate from the same location. Newborn infants, in contrast to adults, respond to precedence-effect stimuli as if the sounds from both sources were audible.’OJ1 By 6 months of age, and perhaps before, infants experience the precedence effect, but they continue to hear only the leading sound at onset-time differences well beyond those perceived as two successive sounds by children and adults.1Z Consistent with these reports of temporal processing delays in early life is evidence of relatively poor discrimination of signal and silence durations by infants and 5-year-old children.I3

The factors presumed responsible for infants’ poor resolution of such signals include immature temporal coding in the primary auditory pathways4 elevated thresholds for the detection of auditory ~timuli,’~~’5 and difficulties with selective attention.I6 Does this mean that the auditory temporal world of infants is unlike that of adults? If auditory temporal organization depends on reasonably adequate resolution of component sounds, then the infant’s temporal world would differ considerably. If, however, patterns of sounds can be recognized and distinguished from other patterns, even with limited resolution, then infants would have the potential to engage in adultlike temporal processing.

GLOBAL PROCESSING

Warren17 claims that adults perceive many auditory sequences, including speech and music, as temporal compounds or wholes, without resolving these patterns into ordered sequences of sounds. He argues, further, that our ability to identify the components of speech, for example, does not provide the basis for speech perception but rather is a consequence of such perception. In other words, auditory patterns are more than the sum of their parts, exhibiting unique emergent properties.

A number of recent studies indicate that infants also engage in global or relational processing of auditory patterns. For the most part, these studies have used a con- ditioned head turn procedure originally developed for evaluating infants’ discrimination of single s ~ u n d s . ~ ~ J ~ Briefly, infants listen to repetitions of a tone sequence presented from a loudspeaker to one side. On half of the test trials, the repeating pattern is replaced with another pattern that is altered in some respect. On the remaining trials, the repetitions continue without change, the change and no-change trials being presented in random order. When the pattern repetitions are identical, listeners can use absolute cues to guide performance. When the patterns repeat with variations, however, listeners must use relational cues to solve the task.” The experimenter, who is unaware of the identity of the trials (change or no-change), records any head turns to the loudspeaker. Whenever a turn occurs within 4 seconds of a sound change, the attending computer automatically delivers reinforcement, illuminating and activating an animated toy near the loudspeaker. A significantly greater incidence of responding on change than on no-change trials indicates that infants can detect the change in question.

The term “temporal” is used here in a broad as well as a narrow sense. In the narrow sense, temporal patterning refers to arrays of relative sound and silence durations, or timing. In another sense, however, all auditory events or sequences are necessarily temporal because they unfold over time. In this latter sense, manipula- tions of the relative pitch or loudness of pattern elements would alter the temporal structure of those patterns.

TREHUB: TEMPORAL AUDITORY PROCESSING 139

Classi@cation of Auditory Sequences by Rhythmic Structure

The pattern of relative onset times in a sequence of sounds confers a distinct temporal or rhythmic identity,21 just as the pattern of relative pitches in a sequence of notes confers a distinct melodic identity.22 In neither case are the absolute values critical. Leigh Thorpe and I evaluated infants’ ability to extract the temporal organization of a tone sequence and to generalize this organization across variations in tempo.= Specifically, we trained infants to discriminate between three- or four-tone sequences with contrasting rhythmic structure, for example, a 1,2 (X XX) versus 2,l (XX X) pattern or a 2,2 (XX XX) versus 3,l (XXX X) pattern. Subsequently, we evaluated their ability to perform the same rhythm discrimination when the tempo, or rate of presentation, varied across repetitions. Infants succeeded in this task (see FIG. l) , indicating that they could categorize auditory sequences on the basis of their temporal structure or rhythm. Presumably, this skill should enable infants to make perceptual compensations for differences in speaking rate,24 to selectively direct their attention to running speech on the basis of temporal marking,25-26 and to perceive the invariance of songs like “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star,” whether the tempo is fast or slow.

Temporal Grouping

When we listen to auditory sequences, we tend to group subsets of elements within the overall stimulus, the resulting groups being influenced by the relative duration of elements and by other parameters such as the frequency, intensity, and timbre of elements. Our disposition to group stimuli is so compelling that we even group successive tones or clicks that are identical in all re~pects.2~,~* Some of these grouping processes may be primitive in the sense that they are relatively impervious to experi- e n ~ e . 2 ~ In such cases, our knowledge of the world or of the actual stimulus situation does not stop us from perceiving certain auditory events in a nonveridical manner.

Leigh Thorpe and I examined infants’ propensity to impose temporal organization on isochronous tone ~equences.30.~~ We generated six-tone patterns in which the first three tones differed from the last three in fundamental frequency, spectral structure

- c

0 I r g 0.2

g “u 0.1 0.0

Y.. r

- Stone rhythm 4-10n0 rhythm

FIGURE 1. Mean proportion of head turns on change and no-change trials for the 3-tone and 4-tone rhythms. (Data from Trehub & Thorpe, 1989.23)


(sawtooth versus sine waves), or intensity (schematic representation: XXXOOO). We reasoned that if infants organized such sequences into two groups of three tones, as we do, then they would have greater difficulty detecting temporal perturbations between groups of tones compared with identical perturbations within a tone group. The standard patterns consisted of isochronous sequences and the comparison patterns had one intertone interval extended by 75 ms or more. h extended intertone interval or pause between groups (XXX 0 0 0 ) would preserve the presumed structure of the original pattern, making such a change less noticeable. By contrast, a pause at another location (XXXO 00) would generate a new temporal structure, which would enhance the salience of this otherwise equivalent durational cue. In fact, infants more readily detected the temporal alterations when they occurred within a tone group, implying that they had grouped the original patterns of isochronous tones on the basis of similar pitch, loudness, or timbre. Moreover, greater disparities in the grouping parameter (e.g., fundamental frequency) promoted stronger grouping effects.

We have labeled this phenomenon the duration illusion, referring to the mis- perception of silent intervals at critical locations in a stimulus sequence. Perceptual “errors” or distortions such as these are clear manifestations of perceptual organization, guiding the listener’s parsing of auditory stimuli into manageable chunks, highlighting key structural aspects of stimulation, and promoting useful interpreta- tions of stimulus input. Similar temporal organizational processes may be schema based or dependent on experience. One such example is the perception of pauses between words,32 an illusion that operates only for familiar languages.

Other research on infants’ perception of extended passages of speech and music indicates comparable sensitivity to the temporal organization of such sequences. In one study,33 the investigators altered samples of maternal speech by inserting pauses (silent intervals) either between clausal units or within such clauses. The versions with intact clauses and those with temporally altered clauses were made available at different loudspeakers. After a period of familiarization, infants could activate one or the other version by looking at the appropriate spatial location, and could keep listening to such speech by remaining oriented to that location. Infants as young as 6 months of age looked longer at the loudspeaker delivering intact clauses, which presumably reflected their sensitivity to the temporal organization of clauses. More recently, 9-month-old infants have exhibited similar listening preferences for intact

Phrase boundaries in music are marked by some of the same features that mark clause boundaries in speech, for example, drops in pitch and increased duration of the last word or note.35 It would not be surprising, then, if infants showed comparable sensitivity to the temporal integrity of musical phrases. To evaluate this possibility, Krumhansl and J ~ s c z y k ~ ~ altered Mozart minuets by adding one-second pauses either at the end of each musical phrase or within the phrases. As was the case for speech, infants looked significantly longer at the loudspeaker emitting intact phrases than at the one with temporally distorted phrases. Collectively, these studies indicate that infants segment complex auditory stimuli in structurally significant ways. In fact, they exhibit parsing strategies that resemble those used in mature speech comprehension and reading.

p h ~ d s e s . ~ ~

Classification of Auditory Sequences by Pitch Contour

The contour of a melody refers to its pitch configuration, or the manner in which the component pitches change or do not change over time (i.e., whether they rise, fall,


or stay the same). Such configural information plays a prominent role in the perception and retention of unfamiliar melodies, with adults remembering little about the actual pitch distance (i.e., number of semitones) between adjacent notes.36 Even with familiar melodies, adults remember detailed information about the relations between notes (i.e., intervals), but little about the absolute pitch level of any notes3' On the whole, then, our representation of melodies is abstract and relational, much like that of speech.

In recent years, it has become apparent that infants readily discriminate between melodies with contrasting contour, whether the contour change was accomplished by simply reordering the component notes38 or by the addition of a single new note.39 Moreover, infants can be trained to classify melodies on the basis of contour alone, ignoring discriminable differences in absolute pitch and pitch distance.20 Specifically, they learned not to respond to melodies with a simple up-down contour, responding only to melodies with a different contour configuration (see FIGS. 2 and 3). Infants accomplished this task in a context in which each melody was presented

(a) Key variation

D F l A F l D G B D B G C E C E C 294 370 440 370 294 392 494 587 494 392 262 330 392 330 262

change etc. A I I

c)' 4 -

1 I I : I , 0 I I 1 1 . 1 I I I I . I - 1 - 1 ' 1 I I I I ' I I 0 : 1 - I - - I I :

C A F A F C E G E C SU 440 349 440 349 262 330 392 330 261

-

(b) Interval variation

D F I A F I D G A B A G C F G F C 294 370 440 370 294 392 440 494 440 392 262 349 392 349 262

chanae efc.

B I A P A F C F G F C 466 440 349 440 349 M 349 392 349 262

FIGURE 2. Examples of repeating stimuli for the key variation (a) and interval variation (b) conditions. Each example depicts three successive presentations of the standard melody followed by a change and subsequent return to the standard melody. (Stimuli from Trehub et al., 1987.20)


0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 transposition-variation interval-variatlon

FIGURE 3. Mean proportion of head turns on change and no-change trials for the transposition-variation (ix., key-variation) and interval-variation conditions. (Data from Trehub et al., 1987.20)

at a different pitch level than the immediately preceding or following melody, precluding the use of absolute pitch cues. Infants' global or relational pitch processing strategy parallels that of adults, but is in marked contrast to the local pitch strategy typically used by nonhuman specie^.^^.^]

In short, when infants hear a melody that exceeds their immediate memory span, they encode and retain a summary description that enhances contour information at the expense of pitch and interval information. Their pitch-contour strategy can be viewed as yet another perceptual organizational device, one that provides an effec- tive means of parsing complex auditory sequences. In all likelihood, infants use pitch-contour processing in conjunction with temporal grouping or rhythm processing to generate a powerful contour/rhythm parser.

Pitch and duration have correlated patterns of occurrence in speech4* and music.43 Indeed, Carlson and his associates44 contend that speech and music performance have common codes for marking structural constituents. Moreover, they suggest that this situation arises from the importation of acquired speech decoding skills into the domain of music. The findings of research with infants favor an alternative scenario, which is that both speech and music capitalize on inherent or universal principles of auditory pattern processing. This is not to say that nothing needs to be learned, but rather that not everything does. It is likely that we begin with structured or organized p e r ~ e p t s ~ ~ , ~ ~ that we later fine-tune to the requirements of our linguistic and musical culture.

Classification of Auditory Sequences by Interval Structure

In music, as in speech, adults' perception of important structures is thought to be based not only on fundamental grouping processes but also on the progressive internalization of observed reg~larit ies.~7.~~ It is possible, however, that some regu- larities in our musical culture and in others might reflect relative ease of initial processing or relative ease of mastery. If this were the case, then infants should perform better on highly conventional or prototypical patterns than on atypical patterns.


In a series of s t ~ d i e s , " ~ ~ ~ my colleagues and I attempted to determine whether infants could detect very subtle changes to conventional and unconventional melodies. The conventional melodies were based on a frequently occurring pattern that is considered central to Western music, notably the major triad. The unconventional melodies were identical in contour (up-down) and temporal structure (isochronous), having one or more wrong notes in terms of conventional Western scales. The infant's task was to detect a semitone change in one position of each of the melodies. This would constitute an interval change or a change in pitch distance between adjacent notes. Because such a change would conserve the contour of the melody and because infants are primarily contour processors,20 the task would be a particularly difficult one for them. As before, the repeating melodies were always transposed so that absolute pitch cues were unavailable. The outcome was that infants were generally able to detect the interval change in the context of the highly conventional melody, but were generally unable to do so in the context of the unconventional pitch patterning (see FIGS. 4 and 5).

Why might this be the case? Psychoacoustically, intervals that approximate simple frequency ratios are considered more consonant than those with complex frequency ratios.52The notes of the major triad (C E G in the key of C major) approximate very simple ratios (4:5:6), and the outer notes of the triad (C G), in particular, are related by a ratio approximating 2:3, which is prevalent in natural sounds, including the simultaneous components of vowels. Just as attractive faces (from an adult's perspective) are preferred by infants,53 and, just as some vowels are especially good exemplars of a particular phonetic category for infants and ad~lts,54-5~ so some patterns of intervals may be inherently easier to perceive or remember than others. Although early experience seems to play an important role in

Standard melodies Comparison melodies

Good Western m=- B D G E C B D G E ' C

247 294 392 330 2 6 2 k 247 294 392 311 262 Hz.

C F I B F V C 262 369 494 349 262 Hz.

C F t B E C 262 369 494 330 262 Hz.

Non-Western Non-Western -- 262 270 427 392 261 Hz. 262 270 427 415 261 Hz.

FIGURE 4. Standard and comparison melodies for three conditions, good Western, bad Western, and non-Western. (Non-Western melodies cannot be written in conventional music notation.) (Stimuli from Trehub et af., 1990.50)


0.7

0.8

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 good Western bad Western non-Western

FIGURE 5. Mean proportion of head turns on change and no-change trials for the good Western, bad Western, and non-Western melodies. (Data from Trehub et al., 1990.”’)

the formation of vowel categories,56 this does not rule out the possibility that pro- totypic vowels in foreign languages would be more learnable than nonprototypic vowels.

It is important to bear in mind that the infants in the foregoing melody-perception studies were 6 months of age or older, making it possible that previous exposure to music, however limited, had been responsible for the effects observed. Nevertheless, research on American infants’ perception of foreign melodies is at odds with an experiential interpretati~n.~’ Although North American adults were able to detect more subtle differences to Western than to Javanese melodies, infants performed equivalently on both. This finding indicates that culture-specific exposure can narrow listeners’ interval as is the case for their phonetic ca t egor i e~ .~~

ClassiJication of Auditory Sequences by Number of Sounds

The foregoing research indicates that infants, despite the relative poverty of their temporal resolution, exhibit a variety of seemingly sophisticated skills for auditory pattern processing. These pattern processing skills are likely to be activated more or less automatically, whether or not learning is involved. Other pattern-processing skills may depend on focused attention, which may be absent in infants. However, it may be difficult to determine, on an apriori basis, which tasks require such focused attention and which do not.

We know that prelinguistic infants can extract information related to the number of elements in simple visual displays. For example, they can differentiate displays of two items from those with three,hO.h’ and can also detect numerical correspondences across modalities, matching displays of two or three items to equivalent numbers of sounds.h2 This is not to suggest that infants can count, but rather that they apprehend some quality associated with two-ness or three-ness. Nevertheless, this ability seems to be limited to small number displays. On the basis of infants’ precocity in auditory pattern processing, their apprehension of qualities associated with number might be superior in the auditory domain.


TO explore this possibility, my colleagues and I evaluated the ability of 7- to 10-month-old infants to discriminate between sets of auditory sequences differing in number.63 The sequences in each set were characterized by a common number of tones, but varied in tempo (rate), overall pattern duration, pattern density, and the frequency of tones. Tones within each sequence were identical in frequency, but tonal frequency varied randomly across patterns (12 possible frequencies). Infants listened to a series of variable exemplars from one set, which was defined by an invariant number of tones (three, four, or five), and were rewarded for responding (i.e., turning) to exemplars from a different set (i.e., different number of elements). Infants discriminated four-tone comparison patterns from a three-tone standard set, three-tone comparisons from a four-tone standard, and five-tone comparisons from a four-tone standard. In short, numerical information processing in infancy does not seem to be restricted to very small number sets, as has been suggested previously. Nevertheless, the limits of this ability may be reached with sequences of five or more elements.

The sequential processing that characterizes audition may highlight or enhance numerical information, in contrast to visual perception where simultaneity may pose special difficulties. For example, the first or last element of a pattern is considerably more ambiguous for visual than for auditory patterns, creating a need for strategic enumeration processes in the latter. In any case, these findings indicate that infants have some prerequisite skills for concepts as abstract as number.

Infant Movement Responses to Complex Sound Sequences

It is clear that infants perceive important aspects of temporal patterning in complex auditory sequences such as music and speech. In laboratory settings, moreover, they exhibit distinctive patterns of responding such as turning to one type of pattern but not another, or looking longer in the direction of a preferred type of pattern. Such differential responding is usually preceded by highly structured and artificial training regimens. In some research contexts, however, the simple presentation of auditory stimulation has resulted in differential affective responses to contrasting speech samples such as infant-directed versus adult-directed speech64 or maternal-approving versus -disapproving speech.65 It is worth noting that the speech samples in these situations were highly contrastive in pitch and temporal patterning. In fact, the speech that induced positive affect was characterized by smooth, simple pitch contours and slow tempo in contrast to the less preferred speech, which had many more abrupt changes.

Gabrielsson66 has drawn attention to some of the perceptual consequences of timing in music performance such as the listener’s experience of motion, whether or not this “motional” experience results in overt movements like tapping or dancing. For example, when performed appropriately, a march has a motion character distinct from that of a Viennese waltz. Also of interest is the fact that some cultures do not have verbal distinctions between movement and music, movement being considered intrinsic to musical performance and to listening. It is possible, then, that natural movement patterns to music would be more readily observable in listeners with imperfect knowledge of our social conventions.

To gain insight into this issue, my colleagues and I videotaped infants 9-13 months of age as they listened to different musical materials. The infants sat in a chair (walker with wheels removed) and listened to a series of excerpts from commercial recordings of “McNamara’s Band” (band and chorus), which was lively and rhyth-


mic, and “Traumeri” (pan flute and orchestra), which was slow and melodic. Each infant heard five 4 5 s excerpts from each recording in random order. Adults subsequently watched the videotapes without sound and attempted to guess which music had been presented on each trial, receiving immediate feedback after each guess. Adults performed significantly above chance levels, but they were unable to specify the features that guided their judgments. To isolate a possible basis for adults’ success, we had independent observers code the videotapes for the duration of bouncing, defined as vertical motion of the head or torso. Presumably, bouncing would be an appropriate and interpretable response to lively, rhythmic music. Indeed, the mean duration of bouncing to “McNamara’s Band” (29.3 s) significantly ex- ceeded the duration of bouncing to “Traumeri” (7.7 s). This differential pattern of movement responses provides evidence that the temporal patterning of complex auditory sequences is not only noticed by infants but has demonstrable effects on their behavior.

GLOBAL PROCESSING AND ATTENDING

Warren” has identified two fundamentally different means by which we rec- ognize auditory sequences and distinguish different arrangements of their components. He contends that one of these means, the recognition of unresolved patterns or temporal compounds, is much more important in daily life than is the other, the analysis of component sounds. Auditory analysis not only involves the resolution of individual components but also their identification and appropriate sequencing. The terms “higher level” and “lower level” seem to be less appropriate designations for these auditory processes than the alternative terms “global” and “local.” In any case, infants are remarkably adultlike in global processing at the same time as they are notably deficient in local processing. What are the likely consequences of infants’ global mode of processing?

According to Jones and Boltz,43 the temporal patterning of words, pitches, and other information affects our attention to such information. Highly coherent events, such as speech or musical patterns, are structurally predictable, at least in part, exhibiting distinct rhythmic patterns. Events with low coherence, such as word lists or traffic noise, have little structural predictability. When listeners are exposed to highly coherent or rhythmically patterned sounds, they can track information efficiently, without the requirement of continuous monitoring,26 and can engage in future-oriented attending.43 The result of such future-oriented or dynamic attending is the generation of expectancies about what is likely to happen and when. From this perspective, listening to rhythmically patterned sounds is a rhythmic activity itself, with listeners sharing and becoming attuned to the rhythmic pattern of stimula- t i ~ n . ~ ~ On the basis of the research presented here, infants seem to inhabit an auditory temporal world that is similar, in many respects, to that of adults. Thus, they may well engage in dynamic listening, effectively deploying their limited attentional resources well before they acquire linguistic knowledge. Indeed, such listening strategies may facilitate the acquisition of language.

Some individuals, even after joining the linguistic world, may have difficulty engaging in and capitalizing on this dynamic mode of attending. Potential consequences of such difficulty include deficits in the processing of speech presented at rapid rates or deficient application of speech processing strategies to secondary language tasks like reading and writing. Exploring individual differences in the

I


temporal organization of auditory patterns and the short- and long-term correlates of such differences represent important challenges for future research.

REFERENCES

1. POMERANTZ, J. R. & M. KUBOVY. 1986. Theoretical approaches to perceptual organization: Simplicity and liklihood principles. In Handbook of Perception and Human Per- formance, Vol. 11, Cognitive Processes and Performance, K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J. P. Thomas, Eds. Wiley-lnterscience. New York.

2. FITZGIBBONS, P. J. 1983. Temporal gap detection in noise as a function of frequency, bandwidth, and level. J. Acoust. SOC. Am. 70: 955-965.

3. IRWIN, R. J., A. K. R. BALL.N. KAY, J. A. STILLMAN& J. ROSSER. 1985. The development of auditory temporal acuity in children. Child Dev. 56: 614-620.

Infant auditory temporal acuity: Gap detection. Child Dev. 63: 26C-272.

in preschool children. Child Dev. 60: 61 1-624.

Austria.

4. WERNER, L. A., G. C. MARE AN.^. F. HALPIN. N. B. SPETNER& J. M. GILLENWATER. 1992.

5. WIGHTMAN.F., P. ALLEN,T. DOLAN,T. KISTLER& D. JAMIESON. 1989. Temporal resolution

6. SCHUBERT, E. D. 1980. Hearing: Its Function and Dysfunction. Springer-Verlag. Wien,

7. DAVIS, S. M. & R. L. MCCROSKEY. 1980. Auditory fusion in children. Child Dev. 51:

8. CLIFTON, R. K. 1985. The precedence effect: Its implications for developmental questions. In Auditory Development in Infancy, S. E. Trehub and B. A. Schneider, Eds. Plenum. New York.

75-80.

9. GREEN, D. M. 1976. An Introduction to Hearing. Erlbaum. Hillsdale, N.J. 10. CLIFTON, R. K., B. A. MORRONGIELLO. J. W. KULIG & J. W. DOWD. 1981. Newborns’

orientation toward sound: Possible implications for cortical development. Child Dev. 52: 833-838.

11. MORRONGIELLO, B. A., R. K. CLIFTON & J. W. KULIG. 1982. Newborn cardiac and behavioral orienting responses to sound under varying precedence effect conditions. Infant Behav. Dev. 5: 249-259.

12. MORRONGIELLO, B. A., J. W. KULIG & R. K. C L I F ~ O N . 1984. Developmental changes in auditory temporal perception. Child Dev. 55: 461471.

13. MORRONGIELLO, B. A. & S. E. TREHUB. 1987. Age-related changes in auditory temporal perception. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 44: 413426.

14. SCHNEIDER, B. A. & S. E. TREHUB. 1992. Sources of developmental change in auditory sensitivity. In Developmental Psychoacoustics, L. A. Werner and E. W. Rubel, Eds. American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C.

15. T R E H U B . ~ . E., B. A. SCHNEIDER& M. ENDMAN. 1980. Developmental changes in infants’ sensitivity to octave-band noises. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 29: 282-293.

16. WERNER, L. A. & J. Y. BARCONES. 1991. Sources of auditory masking in infants: Dis- traction effects. Percept. Psychophys. 50: 405-41 2.

17. WARREN, R. M. 1993. Perception of global properties of sound sequences. In Thinking in Sound: Cognitive Aspects of Human Audition, S. McAdams and E. Bigand, Eds. Oxford Univ. Press. Oxford, England.

18. EILERS, R. E., W. R. WILSON & J. M. MOORE. 1977. Developmental changes in speech discrimination in infants. J. Speech Hear Res. 20: 766-780.

19. KUHL, P. K. 1985. Methods in the study of infant speech perception. In Measurement of Audition and Vision in the First Year of Postnatal Life: A Methodological Overview, G. Gottlieb and N. A. Krasnegor, Eds. Ablex. Norwood, N.J.

20. TREHUB, S. E., L. A. THORPt & B. A. MORKONGI~LLO. 1987. Organizational processes in infants’ perception of auditory patterns. Child Dev. 58: 741-749.

21. WHITE. B. W. 1960. Recognition of distorted melodies. Am. J. Psychol. 73: 10G-107.


22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28. 29. 30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

DOWLING, W. J. 1978. Scale and contour. Two components of a theory of memory for melodies. Psychol. Rev. 85: 341-354.

TREHUB, S. E. & L. A. THORPE. 1989. Infants’ perception of rhythm. Categorization of auditory sequences by temporal structure. Can. J. Psychol. 43: 217-229.

E I M A S , ~ . D. & J. L. MILLER. 1980. Contextual effects in infant speech perception. Science 209: 114G-1141.

BAILEY, P. J. 1983. Hearing for speech: The information transmitted in normal and impaired speech. In Hearing Science and Hearing Disorders, M. E. Lutman and M. P. Haggard, Eds. Academic Press. London.

MARTIN, J. G. 1972. Rhythmic (hierarchical) versus serial structure in speech and other behavior. Psychol. Rev. 79: 487-509.

FRAISSE. P. 1982. Rhythm and tempo. In The Psychology of Music, D. Deutsch, Ed. Academic Press, New York.

WOODROW, H. 1909. A quantitative study of rhythm. Arch. Psychol. 18:(1). BREGMAN, A. S. 1990. Auditory Scene Analysis. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass. THORPE,L. A. & S. E. TREHUB. 1989. Duration illusion and auditory grouping in infancy. Dev. Psychol. 25: 122-127.

THORPE,L. A., S. E. TREHUB,B. A. MORRONGIELLO& D. BULL. 1988. Perceptual grouping by infants and preschool children. Dev. Psychol. 24: 484491.

STUDDERT-KENNEDY. M. 1975. From continuous signal to discrete message: Syllable to phoneme. In The Role of Speech in Language, J. F. Kavanaugh and J. E. Cutting, Eds. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass.

HIRSH-PASEK, K., D. G. KEMLER NELSON, P. W. JUSCZYK, K. WRIGHT CASSIDY, B. DRUSS & L. KENNEDY. 1987. Clauses are perceptual units for young infants. Cognition 26

JUSCZYK, P. W., K. HIRSH-PASEK, D. G. KEMLER NELSON, L. KENNEDY, A. WOODWARD & J. PIWOZ. 1992. Perception of acoustic correlates of major phrasal units by young infants.

KRUMHANSL, C. L. & P. W. JUSCZYK. 1990. Infants’ perception of phrase structure in music. Psychol. Sci. 1: 70-73.

BARTLETT, J. C. & W. J. DOWLING. 1980. Recognition of transposed melodies: A key- distance effect in developmental perspective. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. 6: 501- 515.

ATTNEAVE, F. & R. K. OLSON. 1971. Pitch as a medium: A new approach to psycho- physical scaling. Am. J. Psychol. 84: 147-166.

TREHUB. S. E., D. BULL & L. A. THORPE. 1984. Infants’ perception of melodies: The role of melodic contour. Child Dev. 55: 821-830.

TREHUB, S. E., L. A. THORPE & B. A. MORRONGIELLO. 1985. Infants’ perception of melodies: Changes in a single tone. Infant Behav. Dev. 8: 213-223.

D’AMATO, M. R. 1988. A search for tonal pattern perception in cebus monkeys: Why monkeys can’t hum a tune. Music Percept. 5: 453430.

HULSE, S. H., S. C. PAGE & R. F. BRAATEN. 1990. An integrative approach to serial pattern learning: Music perception and comparative acoustic perception. In Comparative Percep- tion, Vol. 11, Communication, W. C. Stebbins and M. Berkley, Eds. Wiley. New York.

ALLEN, G. D. 1975. Speech rhythm: Its relation to performance universals and articulatory timing. J. Phon. 3: 75-86.

JONES,M. R. & M. BOLTZ. 1989. Dynamic attending and responses to time. Psychol. Rev. 96: 459-491.

CARLSON, R., A. FRIBERG, L. FRYDEN. B. GRANSTROM & J. SUNDBERG. 1989. Speech and music performance: Parallels of contrasts. Contemp. Music Rev. 4: 391404.

TREHUB, S. E. 1985. Auditory pattern perception in infancy. I n Auditory Development in Infancy, S. E. Trehub and B. A. Schneider, Eds. Plenum. New York.

TREHUB, S. E. & L. J. TRAINOR. 1993. Listening strategies in infancy: The roots of language and musical development. In Thinking in Sound: Cognitive Perspectives on Human Audition, S. McAdams and E. Bigand, Eds. Oxford Univ. Press. London.

269-286.

Cog. Psychol. 24: 252-293.


47. JONES, M. R. 1982. Music as a stimulus for psychological motion, Part 11, An expectancy model. Psychomusicology 2: 1-13.

48. KRUMHANSL, C. L. 1990. Cognitive Foundations of Musical Pitch. Oxford Univ. Press. New York.

49. COHEN,A. J., L. A. THORPE& S. E. TREHUB. 1987. Infants’ perception of musical relations in short transposed tone sequences. Can. J. Psychol. 41: 33-47.

50. T R E H U B , ~ . E., L. A. THORPE& L. J. TRAINOR. 1990. Infants’ perception of good and bad melodies. Psychomusicology 9: 5-15.

51. TRAINOR,L. J. & S. E. TREHUB. Musical context effects in infants and adults: Key distance. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. In press.

52. RAKOWSKI. A. 1990. Intonation variants of musical intervals in isolation and in musical contexts. Psychol. Music 18: 6&72.

53. LANOLOIS, J. H. & L. A. ROGGMAN. 1990. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol. Sci. 1: 115-121.

54. GRIESER, D. L. & P. K. KUHL. 1989. Categorization of speech by infants: Support for speech-sound prototypes. Dev. Psychol. 25: 577-588.

55. KUHL, P. K. 1991. Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Percept. Psychophys. 50: 93-107.

56. K u H L , ~ . K., K. A. WILL1AMS.F. LACERDA,K. N. STLVENS& B. LINDBLOM. 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255: 606-608.

57. LYNCH, M. P., R. E. EILERS,D. K. OLLER& R. C. URBANO. 1990. Innateness, experience, and music perception. Psychol. Sci. 1: 272-276.

58. TRAINOR, L. J. & S. E. TREHUB 1992. A comparison of infants’ and adults’ sensitivity to western musical structure. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. 18: 394402.

59. WERKER, J. F. & C. E. LALONDE. 1988. Cross-language speech perception: Initial capa- bilities and developmental change. Dev. Psychol. 24: 672-683.

60. STARKEY, P. & R. G. COOPER. 1980. Perception of numbers by human infants. Science

61. STRAUSS, M. S. & L. E. CURTIS. 1981. Infant perception of numerosity. Child Dev. 52: 1146-1152.

62. STARKEY, P., E. S. SPLLKE & R. GBLMAN. 1983. Detection of 1-1 correspondences by human infants. Science 222: 79-81.

63. TREHUB, S. E., L. A. THORPE & A. J. COHEN. 1991. Infants’ auditory processing of numerical information. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Human Develop- ment, Seattle, Wash.

64. WERKER, J. F. & P. J. MCLEOD. 1989. Infant preference for both male and female infant-directed talk: A developmental study of attentional and affective responsiveness. Can. J. Psychol. 43: 230-246.

65. FERNALD, A. Approval and disapproval: Infant responsiveness to vocal affect in familiar and unfamiliar languages. Child Dev. In press.

66. GABRIELSSON, A. 1988. Timing in music performance and its relations to music experience. I n Generative Processes in Music: The Psychology of Performance, Improvisa- tion, and Composition, J. A. Sloboda, Ed. Clarendon Press. Oxford.

210: 1033-1035.

Temporal Auditory Processing in Infancy · listeners can use absolute cues to guide performance....

Documents

Transcript of Temporal Auditory Processing in Infancy · listeners can use absolute cues to guide performance....