Why are damped sounds perceived as shorter than ramped sounds?

被引:4
|
作者
Grassi, Massimo [1 ]
Mioni, Giovanna [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Padua, Dept Gen Psychol, Via Venezia 8, I-35131 Padua, Italy
关键词
Psychoacoustics; SUBJECTIVE DURATION; LOUDNESS CHANGE; TEMPORAL ASYMMETRIES; PERCEPTION; INTENSITY; TONES; BIAS; DISCRIMINATION; SOFTWARE; IDENTIFY;
D O I
10.3758/s13414-020-02059-2
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Hearing is the most accurate sense for perceiving duration. However, rarely it produces inaccurate estimates of duration, for example when it compares the subjective duration of tones that are increasing in intensity over time (i.e., ramped) with that of tones that are decreasing in intensity over time (i.e., damped). The literature reports that the damped tones are perceived as much being shorter than the ramped tones of the same length. The short subjective duration of damped tones may originate from a decay suppression mechanism that parses the source-informative part of many natural sounds (i.e., the beginning) from the less informative part of them (the decay): listeners may interpret the tail of damped tones like an echo or like the decay portion of an impact sound and exclude it from the account of the duration of the tone. In the natural soundscape, the tail of sounds produced in reverberant environments and the tail of impact sounds have a frequency content that is constant throughout the sound's duration. Here, the carriers used for ramped and damped sounds were a tone constant in frequency and a tone modulated in frequency. The frequency modulation was introduced to prevent the listener from interpreting the tail of these tones as the result of reverberation or the decay portion of an impact sound. Frequency constant damped tones were largely underestimated in duration whereas frequency modulated ones were not (or were only slightly), demonstrating that the decay suppression mechanism is a worthy explanation for the short subjective duration of damped tones.
引用
收藏
页码:2775 / 2784
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] WHY CARAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ORF
    WALLNER, R
    SIEMENS REVIEW, 1994, 61 (01): : 14 - 15
  • [22] Why Can Sounds Be Structured As Music?
    Lango, John W.
    TEOREMA, 2012, 31 (03): : 49 - 62
  • [23] Why Cumulative Decomposition Is Not as Bad as It Sounds
    Schutt, Andreas
    Feydy, Thibaut
    Stuckey, Peter J.
    Wallace, Mark G.
    PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF CONSTRAINT PROGRAMMING, 2009, 5732 : 746 - +
  • [24] "Kelpie" Sounds Nicer than "Monster"
    Young, Natalie
    SOUTH DAKOTA REVIEW, 2017, 53 (01): : 88 - 89
  • [25] Why "sounds are judged longer than lights": Application of a model of the internal clock in humans
    Wearden, JH
    Edwards, H
    Fakhri, M
    Percival, A
    QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY SECTION B-COMPARATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 51 (02): : 97 - 120
  • [26] AUDITORY PERCEIVED DISTANCE OF FAMILIAR SPEECH SOUNDS
    MERSHON, DH
    PHILBECK, JW
    BULLETIN OF THE PSYCHONOMIC SOCIETY, 1991, 29 (06) : 530 - 530
  • [27] Nonlinear dynamics of the perceived pitch of complex sounds
    Cartwright, JHE
    González, DL
    Piro, O
    PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 1999, 82 (26) : 5389 - 5392
  • [28] Action sounds recalibrate perceived tactile distance
    Tajadura-Jimenez, Ana
    Vaeljamaee, Aleksander
    Toshima, Iwaki
    Kimura, Toshitaka
    Tsakiris, Manos
    Kitagawa, Norimichi
    CURRENT BIOLOGY, 2012, 22 (13) : R516 - R517
  • [29] Response Times when Interpreting Artificial Subtle Expressions are Shorter than with Human-like Speech Sounds
    Komatsu, Takanori
    Kobayashi, Kazuki
    Yamada, Seiji
    Funakoshi, Kotaro
    Nanano, Mikio
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2017 ACM SIGCHI CONFERENCE ON HUMAN FACTORS IN COMPUTING SYSTEMS (CHI'17), 2017, : 3501 - 3505
  • [30] Why it all sounds like rhubarb in the end
    Helmes, B
    NEW SCIENTIST, 1996, 152 (2058) : 18 - 18