Three experiments examined listeners’ thresholds for classifying the pitch of a target signal in a masking noise when it was presented alone as compared to when it was presented with a “cosignal.” The target signal was a narrow band of noise centered on either 375 or 625 Hz and the masker was noise low-pass filtered at 1000 Hz. The cosignal provided no information about the pitch of the target signal but could potentially combine with it to form an auditory object; it was spectrally well separated from the target signal, consisting of a band of noise ranging from 2200 to 2900 Hz. Experiment 1 showed that identification thresholds were lower when the target signal was paired with the cosignal than when it was presented alone if the onsets and offsets of the target signal and cosignal were temporally synchronous. This is an instance of “coherence masking protection,” a phenomenon that has previously been established in the perception of vowels [P. C. Gordon, Percept. Psychophys. 59, 232–242 (1997)]. The effect disappears when the cosignal leads and lags the target signal by short durations, a finding that also matches that observed previously with vowels. The finding that temporal relations between the components of a stimulus have similar effects on the perception of nonspeech noise complexes and speech sounds suggests that speech perception makes use of general auditory mechanisms for perceptual integration of this sort. Experiments 2 and 3 examine further the role of temporal relations between the onsets and offsets of the target signal and the cosignal in producing coherence masking protection. The results show that either onset synchrony or offset synchrony is sufficient to produce the effect when the cosignal is of greater duration than the target signal, but that only onset synchrony produces the effect when the target signal has greater duration than the cosignal. This pattern indicates that the target signal and cosignal do not contribute equally to the formation of auditory objects.

1.
Bailey
,
P. J.
, and
Herrman
,
P.
(
1993
). “
A reexamination of duplex perception evoked by intensity differences
,”
Percept. Psychophys.
54
,
20
32
.
2.
Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory Scene Analysis (MIT, Cambridge, MA).
3.
Bregman
,
A. S.
, and
Pinker
,
S.
(
1978
). “
Auditory streaming and the building of timbre
,”
Can. J. Psychol.
32
,
19
31
.
4.
Buus
,
S.
(
1985
). “
Release from masking caused by envelope fluctuations
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
78
,
1958
1965
.
5.
Ciocca
,
V.
, and
Bregman
,
A. S.
(
1989
). “
The effects of auditory streaming on duplex perception
,”
Percept. Psychophys.
46
,
39
48
.
6.
Darwin, C. J. (1981). “Perceptual grouping of speech components differing in fundamental frequency and onset-time,” Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 33A, 185–207.
7.
Darwin, C. J. (1984a). “Auditory processing and speech perception,” in Attention and Performance X: Control of Language Processes, edited by H. Bouma and D. G. Bouwhuis (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 197–210.
8.
Darwin
,
C. J.
(
1984b
). “
Perceiving vowels in the presence of another sound: Constraints on formant perception
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
76
,
1636
1647
.
9.
Darwin
,
C. J.
, and
Gardner
,
R. B.
(
1986
). “
Mistuning a harmonic of a vowel: Grouping and phase effects on vowel quality
,"
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
79
,
838
845
.
10.
Darwin, C. J., and Sutherland, N. S. (1984). “Grouping frequency components of vowels: When is a harmonic not a harmonic?” Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 36A, 193–208.
11.
Fowler
,
C. A.
, and
Rosenblum
,
L. D.
(
1990
). “
Duplex perception: A comparison of monosyllables and slamming doors
,”
J. Exp. Psychol: Human Perception and Performance
16
,
742
754
.
12.
Gordon
,
P. C.
(
1997
). “
Coherence masking protection in speech sounds: The role of formant synchrony
,”
Percept. Psychophys.
59
,
232
242
.
13.
Green, D. M. (1988). Profile Analysis: Auditory Intensity Discrimination (Oxford U.P., New York).
14.
Hall
III,
J. W.
, and
Grose
,
J. H.
(
1988
). “
Comodulation masking release: Evidence for multiple cues
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
84
,
1669
1675
.
15.
Hall
III,
J. W.
, and
Grose
,
J. H.
(
1990
). “
Comodulation masking release and auditory grouping
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
88
,
119
125
.
16.
Hall, J. W., III, and Haggard, M. P. (1983). “Co-modulation—A principle for auditory pattern analysis in speech,” Proceedings of the 11th ICA 4, 69–71.
17.
Hall
,
J. W., III
,
Haggard
,
M. P.
, and
Fernandes
,
M. A.
(
1984
). “
Detection in noise by spectrotemporal pattern analysis
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
76
,
50
56
.
18.
Hukin
,
R. W.
, and
Darwin
,
C. J.
(
1995
). “
Comparison of the effect of onset asynchrony on auditory grouping in pitch matching and vowel identification
,”
Percept. Psychophys.
57
,
191
196
.
19.
Kiang, N. Y.-S., Watanabe, T., Thomas, E. C., and Clark, L. F. (1965). Discharge Patterns of Single Fibers in the Cat’s Auditory Nerve (MIT, Cambridge, MA).
20.
Liberman, A. M. (1982). “On finding that speech is special,” Am. Psychol. 37, 148–167.
21.
Liberman
,
A. M.
, and
Mattingly
,
I. G.
(
1989
). “
A specialization for speech perception
,”
Science
243
,
489
494
.
22.
Liberman
,
A. M.
,
Isenberg
,
D.
, and
Rackerd
,
B.
(
1981
). “
Duplex perception for stop consonants: Evidence for a phonetic mode
,”
Percept. Psychophys.
30
,
133
143
.
23.
Liberman
,
A. M.
,
Cooper
,
F. S.
,
Shankweiler
,
D. P.
, and
Studdert-Kennedy
,
M.
(
1967
). “
Perception of the speech code
,”
Psychol. Rev.
74
,
431
460
.
24.
Mann, V. A., and Liberman, A. M. (1983). “Some differences between phonetic and auditory modes of perception,” Cognition 14, 211–235.
25.
Moore, B. C. J. (1993). “Frequency analysis and pitch perception” in Human Psychophysics, edited by W. A. Yost, A. N. Popper, and R. R. Fay (Springer-Verlag, New York).
26.
Pisoni
,
D. B.
(
1977
). “
Identification and discrimination of the relative onset time of two component tones: Implications for voicing perception in stops
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
61
,
1352
1361
.
27.
Remez
,
R. E.
(
1980
). “
Susceptibility of a stop consonant to adaptation on a speech-nonspeech continuum: Further evidence against feature detectors in speech perception
,”
Percept. Psychophys.
27
,
17
23
.
28.
Remez
,
R. E.
,
Rubin
,
P. E.
,
Berns
,
S. M.
,
Pardo
,
J. S.
, and
Lang
,
J. M.
(
1994
). “
On the perceptual organization of speech
,”
Psychol. Rev.
101
,
129
156
.
29.
Roberts
,
B.
, and
Moore
,
B. C. J.
(
1990
). “
The influence of extraneous sounds on the perceptual estimation of first-formant frequency in vowels
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
88
,
2571
2583
.
30.
Roberts
,
B.
, and
Moore
,
B. C. J.
(
1991
). “
The influence of extraneous sounds on the perceptual estimation of first-formant frequency in vowels under conditions of asynchrony
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
89
,
2922
2932
.
31.
Summerfield
,
Q.
,
Haggard
,
M. P.
,
Foster
,
J.
, and
Gray
,
S.
(
1984
). “
Perceiving vowels from uniform spectra: phonetic exploration of an auditory after-effect
,”
Percept. Psychophys.
35
,
203
213
.
32.
Whalen
,
D. H.
, and
Liberman
,
A. M.
(
1987
). “
Speech perception takes precedence over nonspeech perception
,”
Science
237
,
169
171
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.