The decays of pitch traces and loudness traces in short-term auditory memory were compared in forced-choice discrimination experiments. The two stimuli presented on each trial were separated by a variable delay (D); they consisted of pure tones, series of resolved harmonics, or series of unresolved harmonics mixed with lowpass noise. A roving procedure was employed in order to minimize the influence of context coding. During an initial phase of each experiment, frequency and intensity discrimination thresholds were measured with an adaptive staircase method while D was fixed at 0.5 s. The corresponding physical differences (in cents or dB) were then constantly presented at four values of D: 0.5, 2, 5, and 10 s. In the case of intensity discrimination, performance markedly decreased when D increased from 0.5 to 2 s, but was not further reduced when D was longer. In the case of frequency discrimination, the decline of performance as a function of D was significantly less abrupt. This divergence suggests that pitch and loudness are processed in separate modules of auditory memory.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
November 1999
November 01 1999
Memory for pitch versus memory for loudness
Sylvain Clément;
Sylvain Clément
Laboratoire de Neurophysiologie (UMR CNRS 5543), BP 63, Université Bordeaux 2, 146 rue Léo-Saignat, F-33076 Bordeaux Cedex, France
Search for other works by this author on:
Laurent Demany;
Laurent Demany
Laboratoire de Neurophysiologie (UMR CNRS 5543), BP 63, Université Bordeaux 2, 146 rue Léo-Saignat, F-33076 Bordeaux Cedex, France
Search for other works by this author on:
Catherine Semal
Catherine Semal
Laboratoire de Neurophysiologie (UMR CNRS 5543), BP 63, Université Bordeaux 2, 146 rue Léo-Saignat, F-33076 Bordeaux Cedex, France
Search for other works by this author on:
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 2805–2811 (1999)
Article history
Received:
January 14 1999
Accepted:
June 28 1999
Citation
Sylvain Clément, Laurent Demany, Catherine Semal; Memory for pitch versus memory for loudness. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1 November 1999; 106 (5): 2805–2811. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428106
Download citation file:
Pay-Per-View Access
$40.00
Sign In
You could not be signed in. Please check your credentials and make sure you have an active account and try again.
Citing articles via
Day-to-day loudness assessments of indoor soundscapes: Exploring the impact of loudness indicators, person, and situation
Siegbert Versümer, Jochen Steffens, et al.
A survey of sound source localization with deep learning methods
Pierre-Amaury Grumiaux, Srđan Kitić, et al.
All we know about anechoic chambers
Michael Vorländer
Related Content
Interactions between test- and inducer-tone durations in induced loudness reduction
J Acoust Soc Am (October 2003)
Induced loudness reduction as a function of exposure time and signal frequency
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (February 2006)
Observer weighting of monaural level information in a pair of tone pulses
J Acoust Soc Am (June 2000)
Loudness changes induced by a proximal sound: Loudness enhancement, loudness recalibration, or both?
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (April 2007)
Forgetting pitch and loudness
J Acoust Soc Am (February 1999)