↓ Skip to main content

Aftereffects of Spectrally Similar and Dissimilar Spectral Motion Adaptors in the Tritone Paradox

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Aftereffects of Spectrally Similar and Dissimilar Spectral Motion Adaptors in the Tritone Paradox
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00677
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie Malek, Konrad Sperschneider

Abstract

Shepard tones consist of octave-spaced components, whose amplitudes are generated under a fixed bell-shaped spectral envelope. They are well defined in pitch chroma, but generate octave confusions that in turn can produce ambiguities in the perceived relative pitch heights when their chromas are exactly a tritone apart (the tritone paradox). This study examined the effects of tonal context on relative pitch height judgments using adaptor sequences followed by target sequences (pairs of Shepard tones of different chromas separated by a tritone). Listeners judged whether the second target Shepard tone was higher or lower than the first. Adaptor sequences consisted of rising or falling scales (43 s at the beginning of each block, 4 s before each target sequence). Two sets of Shepard tones were used for adaptors and targets that were generated under spectral envelopes centered at either A3 (220 Hz) and C6 (1,046 Hz). Pitch direction judgments (rising vs. falling) to spectrally consistent (A3-A3, C6-C6) and inconsistent (A3-C6, C6-A3) adaptor-target combinations were studied. Large significant contrastive aftereffects (0.08-0.21 change in fraction of pitch direction responses) were only found for the Shepard tones that were judged as higher in the control condition (judgments about the target sequences without adaptor sequences) for the consistent adaptor-target conditions (A3-A3, C6-C6). The experiments rule out explanations based on non-sensory decision making processes. Possible explanations in terms of perceptual aftereffects caused by adaptation in central auditory frequency-motion detectors are discussed.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 29%
Student > Bachelor 2 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 2 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 14%
Materials Science 1 14%
Engineering 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,603,172
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,535
of 30,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,928
of 327,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#536
of 637 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 637 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.