scholarly journals Eye activity tracks task-relevant structures during speech and auditory sequence perception

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peiqing Jin ◽  
Jiajie Zou ◽  
Tao Zhou ◽  
Nai Ding
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Sequence

Primary Auditory Stream Segregation of Repeated Word Sequences

1976 ◽  
Vol 42 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1071-1074 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betty Tuller ◽  
James R. Lackner
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Separation ◽  
Repeated Sequences ◽  
Stream Segregation ◽  
Natural Speech ◽  
Auditory Stream ◽  
Auditory Stream Segregation ◽  
Repeated Word ◽  
Auditory Sequence ◽  
Constituent Order

Primary auditory stream segregation, the perceptual segregation of acoustically related elements within a continuous auditory sequence into distinct spatial streams, prevents subjects from resolving the relative constituent order of repeated sequences of tones (Bregman & Campbell, 1971) or repeated sequences of consonant and vowel sounds (Lackner & Goldstein, 1974). To determine why primary auditory stream segregation does not interfere with the resolution of natural speech, 8 subjects were required to indicate the degree of stream segregation undergone by 24 repeated sequences of English monosyllables which varied in terms of the degrees of syntactic and intonational structure present. All sequences underwent primary auditory stream segregation to some extent but the amount of apparent spatial separation was less when syntactic and intonational structure was present.

scholarly journals Two types of auditory sequence perception

1976 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 387-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bichard M. Warren ◽  
John M. Ackroff
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Sequence

Exploring the Effects of Effectors

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 196-207
Author(s):  
Fiona C. Manning ◽  
Anna Siminoski ◽  
Michael Schutz
Keyword(s):  
Coefficient Of Variation ◽  
Perception And Action ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Rhythm Perception ◽  
Finger Movements ◽  
Auditory Sequence ◽  
Sensorimotor Interactions ◽  
And Training

We explore the effects of trained musical movements on sensorimotor interactions in order to clarify the interpretation of previously observed expertise differences. Pianists and non-pianists listened to an auditory sequence and identified whether the final event occurred in time with the sequence. In half the trials participants listened without moving, and in half they synchronized keystrokes while listening. Pianists and non-pianists were better able to identify the timing of the final tone after synchronizing keystrokes compared to listening only. Curiously, this effect of movement did not differ between pianists and non-pianists despite substantial training differences with respect to finger movements. We also found few group differences in the ability to align keystrokes with events in the auditory sequence; however, movements were less variable (lower coefficient of variation) in pianists compared to non-pianists. Consistent with the idea that the benefits of synchronization on rhythm perception are constrained by motor effector kinematics, this work helps clarify previous findings in this paradigm. We discuss these outcomes in light of training and the kinematics involved in pianist keystrokes compared to musicians synchronizing movements in other studies. We also overview how these differences across motor effector synchronization and training must be accounted for in models of perception and action.

The Role of Large-Scale Memory Organization in the Mismatch Negativity Event-Related Brain Potential

2001 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
István Winkler ◽  
Erich Schröger ◽  
Nelson Cowan
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Mismatch Negativity ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Memory Organization ◽  
Brain Potentials ◽  
Auditory Sequence ◽  
Presentation Condition ◽  
Sound Sequence ◽  
Onset Asynchrony

The mismatch negativity (MMN) component of event-related brain potentials is elicited by infrequent changes in regular acoustic sequences even if the participant is not actively listening to the sound sequence. Therefore, the MMN is assumed to result from a preattentive process in which an incoming sound is checked against the automatically detected regularities of the auditory sequence and is found to violate them. For example, presenting a discriminably different (deviant) sound within the sequence of a repetitive (standard) sound elicits the MMN. In the present article, we tested whether the memory organization of the auditory sequence can affect the preattentive change detection indexed by the MMN. In Experiment 1, trains of six standard tones were presented with a short, 0.5-sec stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between tones in the train. This was followed by a variable SOA between the last standard and the deviant tone (the “irregular presentation” condition). Of 12 participants displaying an MMN at the 0.5-sec predeviant SOA, it was elicited by 11 with the 2-sec predeviant SOA, in 5 participants with the 7-sec SOA, and in none with the 10-sec SOA. In Experiment 2, we repeated the 7-sec irregular predeviant SOA condition, along with a “regular presentation” condition in which the SOA between any two tones was 7 sec. MMN was elicited in about half of the participants (9 out of 16) in the irregular presentation condition, whereas in the regular presentation condition, MMN was elicited in all participants. These results cannot be explained on the basis of memory-strength decay but can be interpreted in terms of automatic, auditory preperceptual grouping principles. In the irregular presentation condition, the close grouping of standards may cause them to become irrelevant to the mismatch process when the deviant tone is presented after a long silent break. Because the MMN indexes preattentive auditory processing, the present results provide evidence that large-scale preperceptual organization of auditory events occurs despite attention being directed away from the auditory stimuli.

Visual and Auditory Sequence Learning in Hearing-Impaired Children

1966 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans G. Furth ◽  
Peter B. Pufall
Keyword(s):  
Sequence Learning ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Visual Stimuli ◽  
Simultaneous Presentation ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
The Other ◽  
Auditory Sequence ◽  
Discrete Task ◽  
Impaired Children ◽  
Hearing Impaired Children

Two hearing impaired groups, one diagnosed as deaf, the other as aphasic, at two age levels, CA 6–7 and CA 10–11, with 8 subjects in each group, were compared to a control hearing group of 16 subjects at each age level. All subjects were given four paired-associate tasks: a visual discrete task with six associations (DPA) and three 2- to 6-sequence tasks with combinatory sequences as stimuli; one sequence task showed visual stimuli in simultaneous presentation (SIM), another in successive (SUC), and a third presented auditory successive sequences (AUD). The main results indicated no differences between aphasic and deaf except that the younger aphasics were poorer on AUD. The younger hearing-impaired were equal to controls on DPA, but poorer on SUC and AUD. For all groups SIM and for controls also AUD was easier than SUC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document