Perceptual learning in frequency discrimination

Demany, Laurent

doi:10.1121/1.393034

Cited by 93 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While differing in the details of their design, results, and interpretations, the present and previously published studies on frequency discrimination learning all agree on at least one point: they show large frequency-and ear-unspecific improvements and either no, or comparatively much smaller, frequency-or earspecific effects (Ari-Even Roth et al 2003;Demany 1985;Demany and Semal 2002;Irvine et al 2000). For instance, in Irvine et al's (2000) study, despite an overall highly significant improvement in FDTs between the pre-and posttraining sessions (p = 0.00001), the frequency-specific component of learning was barely statistically significant (p = 0.049).…”

Section: The Mechanisms Of Frequency Discrimination Learning In Humanssupporting

confidence: 59%

“…A review of existing psychoacoustical data on this questionVwhich are considered in the discussion of the current articleVsuggests that the answer is still unclear. While some earlier studies conclude that frequency discrimination learning is strongly frequency-specific (Demany and Semal 2002), or at least somewhat frequency-specific (Irvine et al 2000;Wright and Fitzgerald 2005;Wright et al 1997), others conclude that it is not frequencyspecific (Demany 1985;Ari-Even Roth et al 2003;Grimault et al 2003), at least within the frequency range tested. The reasons for such different outcomes across studies are unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In the visual modality, for instance, spectacular perceptual-learning effects have been demonstrated in texture-, contrast-, orientation-, or movement-discrimination tasks (e.g., Ahissar andHochstein 1996, 1997;Ball and Sekuler 1982;Berardi 1980, 1981;Sagi 1991, 1993;Karni and Bertini 1997;Schoups and Orban 1996;Ahissar 2001;Gilbert 1994Gilbert , 1996. In the auditory modality, considerable improvements in thresholds with practice have been shown in frequency-and duration-discrimination tasks (Ari-Even Roth et al 2003;Campbell and Small 1963;Delhommeau et al 2002;Demany 1985;Demany and Semal 2002;Grimault et al 2002Grimault et al , 2003Hawkey et al 2004;Irvine et al 2000;Wright and Fitzgerald 2005;Wright et al 1997). The mechanisms responsible for these improvements remain unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Generalization of Frequency Discrimination Learning Across Frequencies and Ears: Implications for Underlying Neural Mechanisms in Humans

Delhommeau

Micheyl

Jouvent

2005

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequency discrimination thresholds (FDTs) at 750, 1500, 3000, and 6000 Hz were measured in 32 normal-hearing listeners before and after each listener practiced the task for 12 h at one of the above frequencies using a single ear. Marked improvements in thresholds taking place over several hours were observed during the frequency-and ear-specific training period. Comparisons between pre-and posttraining thresholds showed large improvements at the trained frequency, but also at other frequencies. The improvements were initially slightlyVbut significantlyV larger at the trained frequency than at untrained frequencies. However, this trained-frequency advantage disappeared rapidly during the course of the twohour multifrequency posttraining session, suggesting rapid relearning or learning generalization across frequencies. In contrast, no significant ear specificity was found, not even at early stages of the posttraining session. These findings add to earlier results suggesting that, in humans, frequency discrimination learning is only weakly frequency-specific, and they reveal that a complete generalization across frequencies can occur rapidly with little retraining at the initially untrained frequencies. Implications regarding underlying mechanisms are discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Mechanisms Of Frequency Discrimination Learning In Humanssupporting

confidence: 59%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Generalization of Frequency Discrimination Learning Across Frequencies and Ears: Implications for Underlying Neural Mechanisms in Humans

Delhommeau

Micheyl

Jouvent

2005

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data from humans indicate no perceptual generalization and knowledge transfer across sounds from different perceptual classes and, therefore, no performance benefit in discrimination when switching the sounds between the classes in a discrimination task (3,5,20,27). This interpretation explains why we did not see a beneficial effect when switching from the easy PT to the hard AM discrimination task (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 40%

“…1A). Because the stimulus classes in the two tasks were different, human studies suggest that the benefit (hard-to-easy effect) was not based on knowledge of or generalization across stimuli (3,5,20,27) but rather was based on implicitly learned information integration (30,31). Integration of information about the stimuli, the procedural context, and the acquired cognitive skills in the shuttle-box seems to be the key for understanding the curves of discrimination performance of our mice in Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory discrimination learning and knowledge transfer in mice depends on task difficulty

Kurt

Ehret

2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mice reproduce interesting effects in auditory discrimination learning and knowledge transfer discussed in human studies: (i) the advantage in the transfer from a hard to an easy task by benefits from transfer of procedural knowledge and information-integration learning, and (ii) the disadvantage in the transfer from easy to hard tasks by inability to generalize across perceptually different classes of stimuli together with initially unsuccessful attempts to transfer cognitive skills from one task to the other. House mice (NMRI strain) were trained in a shuttle-box stimulus discrimination task. They had to discriminate either between two pure tones of different frequencies (PT) or between two different modulation frequencies of an amplitude-modulated tone (AM). Then transfer of knowledge between these two tasks was tested. Mice rapidly learned PT discrimination within two to three training sessions (easy task). AM discrimination learning took longer and did not reach the high performance level of PT discrimination (hard task). No knowledge transfer was detected in animals first trained with the easy (PT) followed by the hard (AM) discrimination task. Mice benefited, however, from knowledge transfer when the AM discrimination was followed by the PT discrimination. When the task changed, confusion of conditioned stimuli occurred if the carrier frequency of the AM was the same as one of the frequencies in the PT task. These results show a hard-to-easy effect when possible knowledge transfer is tested between qualitatively different stimulus classes. The data establish mice as promising animal model for research on genetics of auditory perception and learning.cognitive skill learning | go/no-go paradigm | hard-to-easy effect | shuttlebox | stimulus generalization C omplex forms of auditory learning, such as generalization of stimuli within and across physical categories or transfer of knowledge from one stimulus discrimination task to another, are known from humans (1-6) but rarely have been investigated in other mammals (5,7,8). Research in mammalian models is important, however, for an in-depth understanding of neural mechanisms and the genetics of learning abilities and performances. The mouse (Mus musculus), with its great potential for studying genetic effects on auditory perception, learning, and motor performance, is an ideal candidate species for investigations of auditory learning, because in normal-hearing mice many hearing abilities and functions of processing sounds in the auditory system are already known (9-11). What is missing is an automated and reliable learning paradigm for mice that can be adapted to a variety of learning tasks (e.g., detection, discrimination, generalization, transfer learning), showing that learning rules derived from human studies apply to mice. The shuttle-box seems to be the appropriate learning apparatus because it has been used successfully in simple learning and stimulus detection tasks in mice (12-15) and in complex auditory discrimination and memory tasks in another rode...

show abstract