Effects of Context on the Identification of Everyday Sounds

Ballas, James A.; Mullins, Timothy

doi:10.1207/s15327043hup0403_3

Cited by 69 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, the data on lateral competition and top-down processing are central to current debates in the literature. For example, the significant effect of conceptual information on melody identification is consistent with the emerging literature on visual object identification (Gauthier et al, 2002;Goldstone et al, 2001) and with research on the identification of environmental sounds (Ballas, 1993;Ballas & Mullins, 1991), both of which indicate that conceptual and contextual information influence object identification. This suggests that some components of object identification may operate across different stimulus modalities and classes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Conceptual and perceptual information both influence melody identification

Schulkind

2004

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three processes have been identified as central to object identification: top-down processing, bottom-up processing, and lateral competition. Six experiments using the perceptual interference paradigm were conducted to assess the relative contributions of these three processes to melody identification. Significant interference was observed only when the target and the distracting information were difficult to distinguish both perceptually and conceptually. Lateral competition-the activation of specific distractor melodies-did not influence the magnitude of interference observed. These results suggest that bottom-up and top-down processes contribute more to melody identification than does lateral competition. The data are discussed in terms of the broader literature on object identification and the relationship between identifying melodies, spoken words, and visual objects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Conceptual and perceptual information both influence melody identification

Schulkind

2004

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These studies have varied significantly in goals, and thus in both the research techniques employed and the answers found. Some studies have investigated the broad classification or grouping of large sets of diverse natural and artificial sounds (e.g., Ballas, 1993;Ballas & Mullins, 1991;Gygi, 2001;Howard & Ballas, 1980a, 1980b, 1981. More narrowly focused studies have investigated the identification of a specific source attribute for sounds produced in the laboratory under controlled conditions (e.g., Giordano & McAdams, 2006).…”

Section: Information Triangle and The Source-perception Loopmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory event perception: The source-perception loop for posture in human gait

Pastore

Flint

Gaston

et al. 2008

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a small but growing literature on the perception of natural acoustic events, but few attempts have been made to investigate complex sounds not systematically controlled within a laboratory setting. The present study investigates listeners' ability to make judgments about the posture (upright-stooped) of the walker who generated acoustic stimuli contrasted on each trial. We use a comprehensive three-stage approach to event perception, in which we develop a solid understanding of the source event and its sound properties, as well as the relationships between these two event stages. Developing this understanding helps both to identify the limitations of common statistical procedures and to develop effective new procedures for investigating not only the two information stages above, but also the decision strategies employed by listeners in making source judgments from sound. The result is a comprehensive, ultimately logical, but not necessarily expected picture of both the source-sound-perception loop and the utility of alternative research tools.

show abstract

“…Existing data indicate that certain properties of the auditory context can be extracted even when participants do not attend to the auditory input (e.g., Sussman and Winkler, 2001;Winkler et al, 2003). Conversely, properties of the auditory context have been shown to influence task-related processing of individual sounds (e.g., Trainor and Trehub, 1993; see also Ballas and Mullins, 1991). Moreover, data of Jacobsen et al (2004) indicate that a familiar sound context might influence the passive processing of single sounds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Familiarity affects environmental sound processing outside the focus of attention: An event-related potential study

Kirmse

Jacobsen

Schröger

2009

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tObjective: This study investigated the influence of the familiarity of an environmental sound on sound processing outside the focus of attention. Methods: By comparing ERPs elicited by a familiar, animal sound and an acoustically matched, but unfamiliar, complex sound, three issues were addressed: (a) general differences in the processing of the familiar and the unfamiliar sound, (b) influences of sound familiarity on the processing of deviants unrelated to familiarity and (c) familiarity-specific processing depending on the sound context. Participants watched a silent, subtitled movie. Results: The familiar sound elicited a centro-parietal enhancement of the N1, a frontocentrally enhanced P2 and an additional P250. Auditory deviance processing elicited by deviants in sound location was not influenced by the familiarity of the sounds. However, after an involuntary switch of attention to the deviant, an N400-like deflection indicated enhanced semantic analysis of the familiar deviant. Familiarityspecific ERP effects as a consequence of the sound context occurred between 300 and 500 ms after stimulus onset. Conclusion: Whereas familiarity of an environmental sound elicited enhanced stimulus processing before 300 ms, influences of the sound context were observed subsequent to 300 ms. Significance: Familiarity of a complex environmental sound influences several stages of auditory processing outside the focus of attention.

show abstract

Effects of Context on the Identification of Everyday Sounds

Cited by 69 publications

References 16 publications

Conceptual and perceptual information both influence melody identification

Conceptual and perceptual information both influence melody identification

Auditory event perception: The source-perception loop for posture in human gait

Familiarity affects environmental sound processing outside the focus of attention: An event-related potential study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About