The human 'pitch center' responds differently to iterated noise and Huggins pitch

A magnetoencephalographic marker for pitch analysis (the pitch onset response) has been reported for different types of pitch-evoking stimuli, irrespective of whether the acoustic cues for pitch are monaurally or binaurally produced. It is claimed that the pitch onset response reflects a common cortical representation for pitch, putatively in lateral Heschl's gyrus. The result of this functional MRI study sheds doubt on this assertion. We report a direct comparison between iterated ripple noise and Huggins pitch in which we reveal a different pattern of auditory cortical activation associated with each pitch stimulus, even when individual variability in structure-function relations is accounted for. Our results suggest it may be premature to assume that lateral Heschl's gyrus is a universal pitch center

Evaluation of 2 cognitive abilities tests in a dual-task environment

Most real world operators are required to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. In some cases, such as flying a high performance aircraft or trouble shooting a failing nuclear power plant, the operator's ability to time share or process in parallel" can be driven to extremes. This has created interest in selection tests of cognitive abilities. Two tests that have been suggested are the Dichotic Listening Task and the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. Correlations between these test results and time sharing performance were obtained and the validity of these tests were examined. The primary task was a tracking task with dynamically varying bandwidth. This was performed either alone or concurrently with either another tracking task or a spatial transformation task. The results were: (1) An unexpected negative correlation was detected between the two tests; (2) The lack of correlation between either test and task performance made the predictive utility of the tests scores appear questionable; (3) Pilots made more errors on the Dichotic Listening Task than college students

Detection and direction-discrimination of diotic and dichotic ramp modulations in amplitude and phase

When the source of a tone moves with respect to a listener's ears, dichotic (or interaural) phase and amplitude modulations (PM and AM) are produced. Two experiments investigated the psychophysical characteristics of dichotic linear ramp modulations in phase and amplitude, and compared them with the psychophysics of diotic PM and AM. In experiment 1, subjects were substantially more sensitive to dichotic PM than diotic PM, but AM sensitivity was equivalent in the dichotic and diotic conditions. Thresholds for discriminating modulation direction were smaller than detection thresholds for dichotic AM, and both diotic AM and PM. Dichotic PM discrimination thresholds were similar to detection thresholds. In experiment 2, the effects of ramp duration were examined. Sensitivity to dichotic AM and PM, and diotic AM increased as duration was increased from 20 ms to 200 ms. The functions relating sensitivity to ramp duration differed across the stimuli; sensitivity to dichotic PM increased more rapidly than sensitivity to dichotic or diotic AM. This was also reflected in shorter time-constants and minimum integration times for dichotic PM detection. These findings support the hypothesis that the analysis of dichotic PM and AM rely on separate mechanisms. © 2003 Acoustical Society of America

Loudness enhancement: Monaural, binaural and dichotic

It is shown that when one tone burst precedes another by 100 msec variations in the intensity of the first systematically influences the loudness of second. When the first burst is more intense than the second, the second is increased and when the first burst is less intense, the loudness of the second is decreased. This occurs in monaural, binaural and dichotic paradigms of signal presentation. Where both bursts are presented to the same ear there is more enhancement with less intersubject variability than when they are presented to different ears. Monaural enhancements as large as 30 db can readily be demonstrated, but decrements rarely exceed 5 db. Possible physiological mechanisms are discussed for this loudness enhancement, which apparently shares certain characteristics with time-order-error, assimilation, and temporal partial masking experiments