Tonal Violations Interact with Lexical Processing: Evidence from Cross-modal Priming
1
Tonal Violations Interact with Lexical Processing: Evidence from Cross-modal Priming Meagan E. Curtis 1 and Jamshed J. Bharucha 2 1 Dept. of Psych. & Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, 2 Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENT 1: METHODS EXPERIMENT 1: METHODS RESULTS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS Subjects Twenty-four volunteers from the Dartmouth community Behavioral task Decide as quickly and accurately as possible whether the visual stimulus is a word or a nonword Follow Up In experiment 1, participants were not required to attend to the auditory stimuli. They were instructed to concentrate on the visual task. In experiment 2, participants were required to attend to the auditory stimuli. They were asked to perform a chord discrimination task after the word discrimination task. We anticipated that the chord discriminations would be influenced by the visual stimuli, just as the word discriminations were influenced by the auditory stimuli in experiment 1. pagic + Random tones (500 ms) Fixation Context chord (3000 ms) Word/ Nonword Target chord (1000 ms) Trial Word Discrimination Tas 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800 Expected Unexpected Auditory Stimulus Word Nonword F(1,23)=5.1, p=.03 e aspects of a stimulus are processed in a ti-modal manner and can be informative oss modalities. For instance, a sound nating from a specific location will w attention to that location and allow for ter processing of visual and haptic ormation coming from that direction. investigations examine whether specific ects of music are processed in a multi-modal ner, allowing for cross-modal priming ween the auditory and visual systems. Target Chord Organ Organ C G C F# # # # # Context Target Chord Chord Expected Target Unexpected Target MUSICAL EXPECTANCY MUSICAL EXPECTANCY goal of our investigations was to determine her musical expectancy violations can be rmative across modalities, alerting the eptual systems to anticipate other low ability stimuli. ctancy can be easily modulated using cal stimuli.Once a tonal context has been blished, listeners expect subsequent chords notes to adhere to the established tonality. onality is violated, an expectancy violation rs. cipants heard chord progressions in which arget chord either adhered to or violated the lished tonality. A visual discrimination task resented simultaneously with the target . The visual stimuli consisted of familiar ovel stimuli: words and nonwords. STIMULI STIMULI Participants were faster to identify familiar visual stimuli (words)when they were presented with the expected target chord than when the chord was unexpected. However, participants were faster to identify novel visual stimuli EXPERIMENT 2: METHODS EXPERIMENT 2: METHODS Subjects Ten volunteers from the Dartmouth Community Participation Criterion All subjects were given a chord discrimination pretest. Only those who could perform the task significantly above the level of chance could participate. Behavioral tasks Decide as quickly and accurately as possible whether the visual stimulus is a word or a nonword. Then decide whether the context chord and the target chord are related or unrelated. chord? narse + Fixation Context chord (3000 ms) Word/ Nonword Target chord (1000 ms maximum) Trial Related/ Unrelated (Displayed until response occurs) Random tones (500 ms) Time Time Note: The same stimuli were used in experiments 1 and 2 Word Discrimination Tas 740 760 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 940 Expected Unexpected Auditory Stimulus Word Nonword RESULTS RESULTS Target Chord F(1,9)=5.9, p=.04 Chord Discrimination Ta 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Expected Unexpected Auditory Stimulus Word Nonword Target Chord F(1,9)=6.5, p=.03 The results of experiment 1 were replicated Additionally, the error rates to the chord discrimination task reveal a similar effect words influenced participants to judge chords as being related, whereas nonwords influenced them to judge chords as being unrelated. Musical expectancy and lexical familiarity appear to be processed in a multi- modal manner. Low probability stimuli can be informative across modalities, alerting the perceptual systems to prepare for other low probability stimuli, whereas high probability
-
Upload
gwennan-parker -
Category
Documents
-
view
17 -
download
1
description
Tonal Violations Interact with Lexical Processing: Evidence from Cross-modal Priming Meagan E. Curtis 1 and Jamshed J. Bharucha 2 1 Dept. of Psych. & Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, 2 Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. INTRODUCTION. RESULTS. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Tonal Violations Interact with Lexical Processing: Evidence from Cross-modal Priming
Tonal Violations Interact with Lexical Processing: Evidence from Cross-modal Priming
Meagan E. Curtis1 and Jamshed J. Bharucha2
1Dept. of Psych. & Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, 2Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION EXPERIMENT 1: METHODSEXPERIMENT 1: METHODS
RESULTSRESULTS
CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS
SubjectsTwenty-four volunteers from the Dartmouthcommunity
Behavioral taskDecide as quickly and accurately as possiblewhether the visual stimulus is a word or a nonword
Follow UpIn experiment 1, participants were not required to attend to the auditory stimuli. Theywere instructed to concentrate on the visualtask. In experiment 2, participants wererequired to attend to the auditory stimuli. They were asked to perform a chord discrimination task after the word discrimination task. We anticipated that the chord discriminations wouldbe influenced by the visual stimuli, just as theword discriminations were influenced by the auditory stimuli in experiment 1.
pagic+
Random tones(500 ms)
FixationContext chord(3000 ms)
Word/ NonwordTarget chord (1000 ms)
Trial
Word Discrimination Task
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
Expected Unexpected
Auditory Stimulus
Word
Nonword
F(1,23)=5.1, p=.03
Some aspects of a stimulus are processed in a multi-modal manner and can be informative across modalities. For instance, a sound emanating from a specific location willdraw attention to that location and allow for faster processing of visual and haptic information coming from that direction.Our investigations examine whether specific aspects of music are processed in a multi-modal manner, allowing for cross-modal priming between the auditory and visual systems.
Target Chord
Organ
Organ
C G
C F#
##
##
Context TargetChord Chord
ExpectedTarget
UnexpectedTarget
MUSICAL EXPECTANCYMUSICAL EXPECTANCY
The goal of our investigations was to determinewhether musical expectancy violations can beinformative across modalities, alerting theperceptual systems to anticipate other lowprobability stimuli.
Expectancy can be easily modulated usingmusical stimuli.Once a tonal context has been established, listeners expect subsequent chords and notes to adhere to the established tonality. If tonality is violated, an expectancy violation occurs.
Participants heard chord progressions in which the target chord either adhered to or violated the established tonality. A visual discrimination taskwas presented simultaneously with the targetchord. The visual stimuli consisted of familiar and novel stimuli: words and nonwords.
STIMULISTIMULI
Participants were faster to identify familiar visual stimuli (words)when they were presented with the expected target chord than when the chord was unexpected.
However, participants were faster to identify novel visual stimuli (nonwords) when they were presented with the unexpected target chord than when the chord was expected.
EXPERIMENT 2: METHODSEXPERIMENT 2: METHODS
SubjectsTen volunteers from the DartmouthCommunity
Participation CriterionAll subjects were given a chord discrimination pretest. Only those who could perform the tasksignificantly above the level of chance couldparticipate.
Behavioral tasksDecide as quickly and accurately as possiblewhether the visual stimulus is a word or a nonword. Then decide whether the context chordand the target chord are related or unrelated.
chord?
narse
+
FixationContext chord(3000 ms)
Word/ NonwordTarget chord(1000 ms maximum)
Trial
Related/ Unrelated(Displayed until response occurs)
Random tones(500 ms)
Time
Time
Note: The same stimuli were used in experiments 1 and 2
Word Discrimination Task
740
760780
800
820
840860
880
900920
940
Expected Unexpected
Auditory Stimulus
Word
Nonword
RESULTSRESULTS
Target Chord F(1,9)=5.9, p=.04
Chord Discrimination Task
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Expected Unexpected
Auditory Stimulus
Word
Nonword
Target Chord F(1,9)=6.5, p=.03
The results of experiment 1 were replicated. Additionally, the error rates to the chorddiscrimination task reveal a similar effect; words influenced participants to judge chords as being related, whereas nonwordsinfluenced them to judge chords as beingunrelated.
Musical expectancy and lexical familiarityappear to be processed in a multi-modal manner.
Low probability stimuli can be informativeacross modalities, alerting the perceptual systems to prepare for other low probability stimuli, whereas high probability stimuli alert the perceptual systems to anticipate other highprobability stimuli.
