20140149 ... · web viewword count: 9960 acknowledgements i owe extreme gratitude to my...
TRANSCRIPT
RUNNING HEAD: TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS
Temporal Expectancy in Music Perception: Generalising Dynamic Attending Theory
Through Timbre and Loudness Tasks
By
Joshua P. Carroll
Bachelor of Science (Honours)
Murdoch University
This thesis is presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Sciences (Honours), Murdoch University, 2016.
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 2
I declare that this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its
main content work that has not previously been submitted for a degree at any
tertiary educational institution.
…………………………
Joshua Carroll
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 3
Table of Contents
Table of Contents..............................................................................................................3
Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................4
Abstract..............................................................................................................................5
Introduction.......................................................................................................................6
Experiment 1: Timbre......................................................................................................15
Method.........................................................................................................................15
Results..........................................................................................................................18
Discussion....................................................................................................................26
Experiment 2: Loudness..................................................................................................29
Method.........................................................................................................................29
Results..........................................................................................................................31
Discussion....................................................................................................................38
General Discussion..........................................................................................................40
References.......................................................................................................................48
Appendices......................................................................................................................54
Appendix A..................................................................................................................54
Appendix B..................................................................................................................64
Appendix C..................................................................................................................67
Appendix D..................................................................................................................69
Appendix E..................................................................................................................70
Appendix F..................................................................................................................73
Appendix G..................................................................................................................74
Summary of Project.........................................................................................................75
Word Count: 9960
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 4
Acknowledgements
I owe extreme gratitude to my supervisor and unit coordinator Doctor Jon
Prince, who designed the framework of this project and throughout the year offered me
guidance and support in creating my thesis (despite an extremely busy schedule). I
would additionally like to thank PhD student Tom Scott, who dedicated his own time in
assisting me with the preparation and conduction of experiments when Jon was unable
to. Furthermore I thank my parents for their support in my overall education. Finally, I
would like to thank all my peers and professors at Murdoch University for helping me
trudge through the stresses of the Psychology Honours Course and making this year a
valuable learning experience.
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 5
ABSTRACT
Dynamic Attending Theory (DAT) dictates that temporal expectancies are formed when
attention becomes entrained to a rhythm of events, which influences performance on
stimulus-based tasks. Attention, and subsequently performance, peaks when stimulus
onset occurs at an expected point of time, and declines at more unexpected points of
stimulus onset, creating a temporal expectancy profile (TEP). Evidence for TEPs exist
in time-judgement tasks, but are limited in non-temporally based tasks. If findings of
TEPs extended to non-temporal tasks, it acts as evidence for general attention to stimuli
to be an overall dynamic process. The present study examined whether TEPs existed in
standard-comparison tasks with judgements on the timbre (N=54) and loudness (N=24)
of sounds. Results suggested no overall effect of temporal expectancy in timbre or
loudness judgements. Findings adhere with previous research (Bauer et al., 2015) and
suggest the standard-comparison task is not suitable for demonstrating temporal
expectancy effects. Future research is encouraged to investigate temporal expectancy
using different types of tasks, and to use caution with interference and
interconnectedness between auditory dimensions.
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 6
Temporal Expectancy in Music Perception: Generalising Dynamic
Attending Theory Through Timbre and Loudness Tasks
How does one attend to and perceive musical sounds compared to non-musical
sounds? The answer to this may lie in time structure of sounds, where temporal
expectancies are formed. Large & Jones (1999) described temporal expectancy as the
result of internal oscillations of attention that become entrained to a rhythmic
occurrence of events. In auditory perception, when listening to a sequence of sounds
with an established rhythmicity, attention would oscillate to focus on points of time
where each sound is expected to occur. This creates temporal entrainment of attention to
these expected points in time.
The premise of temporal expectancy stems from the Dynamic Attending Theory
(DAT). Jones (1976) suggested the incorporation of a time dimension alongside the
other auditory dimensions, such as pitch and volume. After reviewing previous studies,
Jones explained that an established pattern of sounds, or rhythm, resulted from the
uniformity of time periods between the sounds. Accordingly, changes to those time
periods would disrupt the rhythm. This knowledge was applied to attention, memory
and perception.
Several studies have demonstrated evidence for DAT by inducing temporal
expectancies to create performance benefits. Jones & Boltz (1989) used time duration
judgement tasks on rhythmical sequences. Time intervals between the sounds of each
sequence, or inter-onset intervals, were conditioned to be either consistent or variable,
allowing for a predictable or disrupted pattern respectively. Participants were instructed
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 7
to compare the total duration of one melody to a subsequent comparison melody. All
melodies spanned for the same duration of time, however results showed that
judgements of the comparison melodies were perceived as shorter or longer when
rhythm was disrupted. The study offered evidence suggesting perception of time was
influenced by the degree to which the ending of melodic events would either confirm or
violate expectancy.
Temporal expectancies were often demonstrated in studies that employed
isochronous musical sequences. This means that the inter-onset intervals (IOIs) in
sequences were always equal. For example McAuley & Kidd (1998) analysed tempo
discrimination tasks, where a standard sequence was compared to a comparison
sequence. The standard sequence established temporal expectancies so that the onset of
the comparison sequence would be expected to occur at a specific point of time. The
study found that having this onset occur earlier or later than expected influenced the
tempo judgements of the comparison sequence. Results reflected Jones & Boltz (1989)
and supported an oscillation model of attention towards time. Large & Jones (1999) also
demonstrated this oscillation model with time-duration judgements. As seen in Figure
1a, oscillating attention peaks at temporally expected points in the stimulus rhythm.
This results in the highest possible performance for a stimulus-based task, depicted in
Figure 1b. Large & Jones (1999) described DAT as an internal attentional rhythm that
forms in line with a stimulus rhythm.
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 8
a)
b)
Figure 1. a) Entrainment of Attention. Before the final tones in an isochronous sequence, attention falls in line with the inter-onset intervals to create a cyclical function of temporal expectancy. Illustration based on model by Jones, Moynihan, MacKenzie & Puente (2002).b) A Temporal Expectancy Profile. The profile of attention corresponds to accuracy in task performance (bold). Accuracy peaks at tones occurring on time with expectancy and falls at tones occurring earlier or later than expected.
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 9
Barnes & Jones (2000) proposed the premise of temporal expectancy profiles.
They examined the effect temporal expectancy had on judgements on the duration of the
final IOI of a sequence. The context sequence of tones that preceded it was isochronous,
so all tones had the same duration and spacing. This involuntarily aligned the listeners’
attention to the rhythm. The second-last IOI of the sequence, the Standard IOI, either
preserved or changed this timing, respectively confirming or violating expectancy.
Participants judged the subsequent Comparison IOI as either longer, shorter or the same
duration as the Standard IOI. The degree to which the Standard IOI was changed was
analysed to determine effects on the accuracy of the duration judgements on the
Comparison. Overall a negative quadratic function, or upside-down U shape, was
observed in relation to expectancy manipulations. Accuracy was highest when the
Standard IOI was consistent with the context sequence, however when the Standard IOI
disrupted the rhythm, accuracy declined. This decline was apparent when the Standard
IOI ended both earlier and later. The same expectancy pattern was observed by Large &
Jones (1999), and would later also be observed in a similar time-judgement study by
McAuley & Jones (2003). These quadratic patterns closely resembled the pattern of
attention dictated by DAT itself (see Figure 1b), acting as evidence for the theory.
Barnes & Jones (2000) named this pattern a temporal expectancy profile (TEP). TEPs
thusly dictate that, parallel with attention, performance on stimulus-based events peaks
when the event occurs at an expected point of time relative to a rhythm, and falls at
more unexpected points of time.
Jones, Moynihan, MacKenzie & Puente (2002) sought to examine whether
temporal expectancy could also reflect attending to tasks that were not temporally
based. This would offer the idea of attending on a whole to be a dynamically based
process dictated by DAT. Jones et al. (2002) designed experiments that had participants
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 10
perform a standard-comparison task on judging the pitch of tones in a temporal
sequence. An isochronous context sequence of 8 tones was placed between a Standard
tone and Comparison tone. As with previous studies (Barnes & Jones, 2000; Large &
Jones, 1999) the IOI preceding the Comparison either remained consistent with the
sequence or was manipulated to be slightly longer or shorter to disrupt rhythm. Thus the
comparison tone would respectively occur on time, later or earlier than expected.
Results demonstrated that the pitch for Comparison tones were judged less accurately
when the tone occurred unexpectedly as opposed to occurring on time, demonstrating
the shape of a TEP. Removal of the regularity of the context sequence eliminated the
quadratic pattern, producing a much more flat profile. Participants had additionally been
instructed to actively ignore the context sequence tones as they were considered
distractors and irrelevant to the task. Regardless of this instruction a TEP was still
found, reinforcing the idea that temporal expectancy is involuntarily formed and drives
attention to stimuli in a rhythmic pattern.
Plenty of research offers evidence for DAT. These included performance
benefits of temporal expectancy in sound detection tasks (Klein & Jones, 1996), simple
response tasks (Correa, Lupiáñez, & Tudela, 2005), artificial language studies (Hoch,
Tyler & Tillmann, 2012) and oddball paradigms (McAuley & Fromboluti, 2014).
Several studies that examined effects on task performance also incorporated pitch
(Bausenhart, Rolke & Ulrich, 2007; Boltz, 1993; Ellis & Jones, 2010; Jones, Johnston
& Puente, 2006; Penel & Jones, 2005; Selchenkova et al., 2014; Selchenkova, Jones &
Tillmann, 2014). Lange (2009) and Schwartze, Rothermich, Schmitt-Kassow & Kotz
(2011) found evidence for temporal expectancy by conducting event-related potential
(ERP) studies. Werner, Parrish & Holmer (2009) observed that effects of temporal
expectancy were evident even in infant perception.
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 11
Despite all the evidence for DAT, there are some studies that cast doubt on the
theory. Barnes & Johnston (2010) examined pitch discrimination tasks and found the
opposite of a TEP, instead observing that temporally unexpected events drew more
attention and had better performance than events that occurred as expected. Prince,
Schmuckler & Thompson (2009) examined pitch perception in another standard-
comparison task with temporal expectancy manipulations much like Jones et al. (2002).
They used two types of context sequences. When context sequences were musically
based, closely resembling the style of music found in contemporary Western music (in
other words, they were tonal), no TEP for accuracy scores in pitch judgements was
present. However when sequences were less musically based and atonal, that is they
consisted of more random notes with no apparent tune, a TEP was observed. They
argued that more musically based sequences bias attention towards the dimension of
pitch and away from temporal perception, eliminating temporal effects. Bauer et al.
(2015) directly examined the study by Jones et al. (2002) and attempted to replicate its
findings though a series of five experiments. They criticised a key methodological issue
in Jones et al. (2002), where the standard tone was always repeated as the final
distractor tone that preceded the comparison tone. This was done to decrease task
difficulty, but also made it redundant for the need to pay attention to the actual standard
tone or any of the intervening distractors other than the final one. Participants of Jones
et al. (2002) who reported recognising this repetition and using the final distractor tone
as a task-specific tone were excluded from analysis. However it was not clear whether
the remaining participants of the study may have implicitly used this technique. Thusly
one of the experiments by Bauer et al. (2015) was a direct replication of Jones et al.
(2002) whilst the other four experiments had small methodological variations such as
repeating the standard tone at different points of the context sequence, and slightly
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 12
altering the duration of the standard and comparison tones themselves. Across all five
experiments only 40 of the 140 total participants had demonstrated a TEP. Of these,
only two participants were from the direct replication experiment. These results casted
serious doubt on the effect of temporal manipulations and the ability of standard-
comparison pitch tasks to demonstrate TEPs.
Clearly DAT is a widely researched and evidence-based theory, with TEPs and
effects of expectancy evident across several studies, especially for time judgement
tasks. Despite this, evidence for TEPs specifically in pitch tasks are inconsistent across
studies. As a result the extent to which attention may be a dynamic process remains
unclear. The premise of Jones et al. (2002) still stands that examining temporal
expectancy in non-temporal based tasks could provide evidence for general attention to
be a dynamic process. The next step in exploring this notion may be to seek evidence
for TEPs from an alternate view other than pitch. There are other non-temporal
properties of musical notes that can be examined for this. Timbre and intensity are two
such properties, and both have not been widely explored with regards to temporal
expectancy. Intensity is the strength or amplitude of sound waves, measured in decibels.
It gives the perception of loudness in sounds, which can be more subjectively measured
on a single continuum from “soft” to “loud”. Timbre, which gives the “quality” of
sound, is a much more complex property. It is most simply understood as the sound
difference between two different musical instruments playing the same note at the same
loudness.
One way to manipulate timbre involves harmonics. Sounds are energy waves at
certain levels of amplitude and frequency, where there is always an underlying “pure”
tone, known as the fundamental frequency. However beyond this fundamental
frequency, energy is also distributed to other harmonic “partials” of the energy wave.
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 13
Each successive partial after the fundamental frequency is double the frequency of the
one previous to it. The distance between each of these partials is referred to as an
octave. A given note will have energy at numerous octaves, each with varying
amplitudes and temporal distribution. Altering this distribution artificially provides a
mechanism of timbre manipulation, so sounds are perceived as “duller” or “brighter”.
Timbre tasks have been incorporated in prior studies examining expectancies in
non-temporal domains. Margulis & Levine (2006) found that identifying the timbre of
sounds was done better when the pitch of the target stimuli fell in line with the
expectations of pitch formed by the melody. Russo & Thompson (2005) observed
effects on melodic interval judgements when the timbre of notes were congruent with
the melody and fell in line with expectations as opposed to when it did not. Tillmann &
Bigand (2010) used timbre discrimination tasks to investigate schematic expectations in
music. Other studies used timbre discrimination tasks to investigate tonal expectations
induced from musical priming and relatedness (Marmel & Tillmann, 2009; Marmel,
Tillmann & Delbe´, 2010; Tillmann, Bigand, Escoffier & Lalitte, 2006). Despite these
studies, none have directly incorporated temporal expectancy with the dimension of
timbre.
Some studies have suggested effects of expectancy on loudness. Lawrance,
Harper, Cooke & Schnupp (2014) investigated the effect of temporal entrainment on
target noise bursts at an isochronous rate. Results found that target bursts which fell in
line with the established rate of previous bursts were more easily detected than those
deviating from it. They suggested that the regularity of sequences could aid in detection
of low intensity sounds. Geiser, Notter & Gabrieli (2012) had participants perform an
intensity discrimination task while listening to sequences of tones that were either
isochronous or irregular. Overall performance was improved when listening to the
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 14
isochronous sequences, and larger intensity differences were perceived significantly
better than small differences. Although temporal expectancy has benefits on
performance in these loudness tasks, an actual TEP for loudness judgements is yet to be
examined.
The aim of the present study is to seek evidence for DAT and generalise it
through non-temporal tasks. Because of mixed findings on pitch tasks, the present study
moves away from the dimension of pitch and instead investigates whether temporal
expectancy profiles exist for timbre and loudness tasks. Two separate experiments
incorporating the standard-comparison task similar to Jones et al. (2002) are used,
replacing pitch judgements with timbre and loudness judgements. Given the similarity
in methodology to Jones et al. (2002), it is hypothesised that both tasks will reveal a
temporal expectancy profile in the form of a negative quadratic function for accuracy
against the degree of temporal expectancy manipulation. That is, accuracy will peak
when there is no manipulation of the comparison tone onset, but will fall when the
comparison tone is manipulated to occur earlier or later than expected. Alternatively the
null hypothesis of no quadratic function is possible given the recent implications of
Bauer et al. (2015).
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 15
Experiment 1: Timbre
Method
Participants
54 adult students (43 females) from Murdoch University participated in the
study as part of their Undergraduate Psychology course. Ages ranged from 18 to 53 (M
= 25.09, SD = 8.70). Participants were recruited by signing up for experiments via the
Sona System, where they received a credit point towards their course in return for their
participation. Musical experience of participants varied between 0 and 16 years (M =
3.56, SD = 4.07).
Stimuli
Stimuli were generated through MATLAB software. Sequences consisted of 10
notes per trial, which did not establish any musical key (i.e. they were atonal). The 1st
and 10th tones were the standard and comparison tones respectively, with the 8 tones in
between being distractor tones. Each note was randomly generated with frequencies
within normal hearing range from 196Hz to 1319Hz. There was up to a 3 semitone
difference between frequencies of notes per trial. The 1st, 2nd, 9th and 10th tones always
shared the same pitch per sequence. The starting and ending pitch was always one of
four tones: #A4 (233Hz), B4 (247Hz), C5 (262Hz) or #C5 (277Hz). Standard and
comparison tones played for 400ms whilst distractor tones played for 200ms. Unless the
onset of the comparison tone was manipulated, IOIs were always 500ms, as this is
theorised to be the preferred oscillation period of attention (McAuley & Fromboluti,
2014). Only two forms of timbre were used, one “bright” and one “dull”. The bright
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 16
timbre, or Timbre A, had 60% of energy allocated to the fundamental frequency, 20%
allocated to the second harmonic and 20% to the fourth harmonic. The dull timbre,
Timbre B, had 80% of energy allocated to the fundamental frequency, 15% allocated to
the second harmonic and 5% to the fourth harmonic. The timbres of the standard note,
comparison note and distractor sequence as a whole were manipulated as shown in
Table 1, giving 8 different conditions that were presented equally and randomly. The
onset of the comparison tone was temporally manipulated to occur very early (-100ms),
early (-50ms), on time (±0ms), late (+50ms) or very late (+100ms). For the main
experimental task there was a total of 160 trials within 4 blocks, allowing for 8 trials for
each temporal expectancy manipulation per block. The duration of each trial was
approximately 5 seconds for the sequence plus the time taken for response.
Combination Standard Distractors Comparison Correct
Answer
1 A A A Same
2 A A B Different
3 A B A Same
4 A B B Different
5 B B A Different
6 B B B Same
7 B A A Different
8 B A B Same
Table 1. Timbre Combinations and Respective Correct Judgements
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 17
Procedure
After reading an information sheet and signing consent (see Appendix A),
participants were verbally briefed by the experimenter on their task and given the
opportunity to ask any questions. They then filled out the Musical Experience
questionnaire (see Appendix A) before completing a practice version of the experiment
on a desktop computer, supervised by the experimenter. Sennheiser HD280 Pro
headphones were comfortably placed on and the master volume was appropriately
adjusted so that musical sequences were heard at comfortable volumes. The first part of
the practice played an example of the “dull” and “bright” timbre, which were the two
timbres they would be hearing throughout the experiment. Participants were given the
option to repeat these two tones until they were able to distinguish between the two.
This was followed by 16 practice trials of the 10-tone sequences. For each sequence
participants were instructed to compare the timbre of the first tone with the timbre of the
last tone, and to ignore all other tones in between. As each sequence ended participants
were prompted on-screen to indicate whether they perceived the timbre of the first and
last tone as “the same” or “different”. They responded by pressing the “P” or “Q” keys
on the computer keyboard; whichever response the keys indicated were reversed for
each participant to provide counterbalancing. Response times were measured, defined as
the time period between offset of the comparison tone and the participant indicating
their answer. Participants were instructed both on-screen and verbally to respond as fast
as they can, but not to sacrifice accuracy. Upon giving a response the trial ended with an
on-screen indication of whether the participant responded correctly or incorrectly with a
“ding” or “buzz” noise respectively. An on-screen instruction would say to progress to
the next trial by pushing the “space bar”, which the participant did in their own time.
Participants were instructed not to rush answers and only press the space bar when
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 18
absolutely ready. After the practice experiment was over performance accuracy as a
percentage was shown on-screen. Those with an unsatisfactory score (< 50%) were
given extra coaching and explanation of the task and were asked to carry out the
practice experiment again to improve their score. After this, and after any further
questions were answered, the real experiment was loaded by the experimenter. The
experimental trials were the same as the practice trials, but with the addition of temporal
expectancy manipulations. Participants were also no longer given any feedback for their
responses. At no point in time were the participants told about the theory behind TEPs
or the temporal expectancy manipulations within the experiment, until after they
completed the experiment and were debriefed. They were also not told of the specific
timbre combinations as shown in Table 1, other than the fact that only a “bright” and
“dull” timbre existed across sequences.
Results
All participants scored above 50% in the practice trials. Some participants were
required to repeat practice until getting an adequate score, however none repeated the
practice experiment more than twice. Accuracy for each variable was determined by the
proportion of correct answers across trials. Outliers in data likely attributed to guessing
were excluded, determined by response times being less than 200ms or over 3000ms.
This range was chosen since response times below 200ms may have implied rushed
answers, and times above 3000ms may have implied lack of attention to the sequence.
Two participants’ data were not used due to their highly variable response times, thus
much of their data were considered outliers resulting in average accuracy to fall below
50%. The remaining 52 participants (42 female) had a mean age of 24.94 (SD = 8.82)
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 19
and mean musical experience of 3.6 years (SD = 4.1). All data was determined to be
normally distributed for parametric analysis (skew < |2.0|, kurtosis < |9.0|). Detailed
output for all conditions can be found in Appendix B.
The accuracy of all participants individually across expectancy levels were
briefly assessed (see Appendix C). No individual participant conveyed a perfect
quadratic function, and only a select few demonstrated a peak in accuracy at the On
Time level. Thus, no individual participant demonstrated a TEP.
Figure 2. Mean Proportion Correct (0-1) Across Timbre and Expectancy Conditions
Figure 2 depicts mean accuracy in all conditions averaged across participants.
Numerically there is no quadratic pattern. To statistically test whether temporal
expectancy manipulations influenced accuracy, a 5 (Expectancy; very early, early, on
time, late, very late) by 8 (Timbre; AAA, AAB, ABA, ABB, BBA, BBB, BAA, BAB)
repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. Mauchly’s Test for Sphericity was satisfied
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 20
for Expectancy, χ2(9) = 8.22, p = .512. However it was not satisfied for Timbre
conditions, χ2(27) = 98.38, p < .001, or the combination of Expectancy by Timbre,
χ2(405) = 529.07, p < .001. The variance of differences between these variables were
therefore unequal. To reduce Type-I error rate a Huynh-Feldt correction was applied.
There was no statistically significant main effect for expectancy, F(4, 204) = 1.92, p
= .108, η2partial = .036, indeed with no significant effect for a quadratic trend, F(1, 51) =
0.12, ns, η2partial = .049. After correction, a statistically significant main effect was found
for Timbre, F(4.91, 250.19) = 11.77, p < .001, η2partial = .188, suggesting a difference
between means lay within the timbre conditions.
A statistically significant interaction between Expectancy and Timbre was also
observed after a Huynh-Feldt correction, F(24.07, 1227.63) = 1.59, p = .04, η2partial
= .035. This meant that performance at one level of a given variable (Timbre or
Expectancy) was influenced by the other variable. Simple main effects analysis was
conducted by isolating Expectancy at each level of Timbre, but still found no significant
main effects. Figure 2 suggests accuracy for the BBA timbre combination was lowest
across all levels of Expectancy. To test this a simple main effects analysis was
conducted by isolating Timbre at each level of Expectancy. A statistically significant
main effect of Timbre was found across all levels of Expectancy. For most of these
levels the BBA combination was significantly lower than other Timbre combinations
(see Appendix D).
Effects of temporal expectancy were then re-evaluated by conducting a 5
(Expectancy; very early, early, on time, late, very late) by 7 (Timbre; AAA, AAB,
ABA, ABB, BBB, BAA, BAB) repeated measures ANOVA, omitting the BBA Timbre
combination from analysis. This removed the presence of an interaction between
Expectancy and Timbre. The assumption of sphericity was met for Expectancy, χ2(9) =
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 21
12.16, p = .205 and yielded a statistically significant main effect, F(4, 204) = 3.22, p
= .01, η2partial = .059. However there was still no significant quadratic effect, F(1, 51) =
0.61, ns, η2partial = .012. Figure 3 depicts accuracy averaged across the remaining 7 timbre
conditions. The only significant difference in means was between the Very Early and
Very Late conditions, t(51) = -2.96, p = .004. A TEP would predict accuracy for these
two conditions to be identical.
Figure 3. Mean Proportion Correct (0-1) Averaged Across 7 Timbre Levels. The BBA timbre is omitted.
A 5 (Expectancy; very early, early, on time, late, very late) by 8 (Timbre; AAA,
AAB, ABA, ABB, BBA, BBB, BAA, BAB) repeated measures ANOVA was
conducted for response times for all correct answers. If a participant had less than 1
correct answer within any given condition, they were excluded from analysis. This left
29 participants available for analysis. Mean response times across conditions are shown
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 22
in Figure 4. Once again there is no numerical quadratic function for expectancy. The
BBA combination shows the longest response times, in accordance with its low
accuracy. Sphericity was violated for Expectancy, χ2(9) = 19.61, p = .02, and
Expectancy by Timbre, χ2(405) = 508.86, p = .003. However Timbre met the
assumption of sphericity, χ2(27) = 40.30, p = .05, which had a statistically significant
main effect, F(7, 196) = 2.61, p = .01, η2partial = .085. A Huynh-Feldt correction revealed
no significant main effect for Expectancy, F(3.49, 97.74) = 0.61, ns, η2partial = .021.
Figure 4. Mean Response Times (in seconds) Across Expectancy and Timbre Conditions
A Huynh-Feldt correction did reveal a statistically significant interaction
between Expectancy and Timbre, F(23.28, 68.07) = 1.76, p = .02, η2partial = .059. Simple
main effects analysis isolating Expectancy at each Timbre combination revealed a
statistically significant effect for the timbre combinations AAB and BAB. Only the
BAB combination demonstrated a significant quadratic effect for expectancy, F(1, 50) =
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 23
12.07, p < .001, η2partial = .194. However the only differences in means that reflected a
TEP pattern was the difference between On Time and Very Early, t(50) = -3.38, p
< .001, and between Early and Very Early, t(50) = -3.20, p = .002. This suggested that
response time worsened only when the comparison tone occurred much earlier than
expected. Note that this difference is only apparent in one direction, occurred only for
this timbre condition, and it is not a direct measure of accuracy. Simple main effect
analysis isolating Timbre at each Expectancy level was performed to statistically test
whether the BBA timbre it was significantly different to other Timbre conditions as it
was in accuracy. Results lacked significant differences in means between the BBA
timbre and other combinations (see Appendix D), and thusly not did not reflect its
significantly lower accuracy scores.
Performance based on musical experience was assessed to examine any
differences in temporal expectancy patterns. Musical experience was defined as the
years spent taking lessons to play an instrument. A small negative Pearson correlation
between average accuracy and musical experience across participants was found,
however this was not statistically significant (r = -.10, p = .48). Participants were split
between having 5 or less years of musical experience (N = 38) and more than 5 years (N
= 14). Means across all conditions are displayed in Figure 5. With musical experience
as a between-subjects factor, a 5 (Expectancy; very early, early, on time, late, very late)
by 8 (Timbre; AAA, AAB, ABA, ABB, BBA, BBB, BAA, BAB) by 2 (Musical
Experience; 5 years or less experience, over 5 years experience) mixed design ANOVA
was conducted.
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 24
a)
b)
Figure 5. Mean Proportion Correct (0-1) Across Conditions for a) Musically Inexperienced Participants, and b) Musically Experienced Participants
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 25
Homogeneity of variance was tested via Levene’s Test of Equality of Error
Variances and was satisfied for all conditions except the ABA timbre at the Very Early
level, F(1, 50) = 4.46, p = .04, indicating that variances were not equal across both
groups for this condition. Sphericity was met for Expectancy, χ2(9) = 10.62, p = .30, but
violated for Timbre, χ2(27) = 100.05, p < .001, and Expectancy by Timbre, χ2(405) =
527.58, p < .001, whereby a Huynh-Feldt correction was used. No statistically
significant main effect was found for Musical Experience, F(1, 50) = 0.41, ns, η2partial
= .008. After correction there was no interaction between all three variables, F(24.54,
1226.77) = 1.04, p = .41, η2partial = .020. There was however a statistically significant
interaction between Expectancy and Musical Experience, F(4, 200) = 2.49, p = .04,
η2partial = .047. This interaction is depicted in Figure 6, where performance on the Very
Early and Early conditions are dependent on the level of musical experience. This
difference was significant for both musically inexperienced persons, t(37) = -3.35, p
= .002, and musically experienced persons, t(13) = 2.29, p = .01. However, both
Musical Experience groups overall failed to demonstrate a TEP, making further
analyses on this trivial. After correction there was no interaction between Timbre and
Musical Experience, F(4.9, 244.99) = 0.95, ns, η2partial = .019. Therefore performance
across timbre conditions did not statistically vary as a function of the musical
experience of participants.
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 26
Figure 6. Mean Proportion Correct (0-1) Between Musically Experienced and Inexperienced Participants Averaged Across Timbre
Discussion
Results in this experiment show unpredictable patterns of accuracy across levels
of expectancy which do not resemble a TEP. Thus the findings fail to reject the null
hypothesis. Numerically, accuracy sometimes decreased with stronger manipulations in
temporal expectancy. However the overall directions and magnitudes of accuracy
changes were random, and differences temporal expectancy conditions still did not
statistically convey a TEP. The inability for the standard-comparison task in this
experiment to demonstrate a TEP accords with the findings of Bauer et al. (2015) who
found no TEPs in their standard-comparison pitch task. This experiment alone suggests
little or no effect of temporal expectancy on performance in timbre tasks. However
given it is the first to examine this relationship, the implication is too early to be
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 27
definite. Instead, combining the findings of this experiment and Bauer et al. (2015)
should cast more doubt on the ability of a standard-comparison task to provide TEPs.
There was no apparent effect of timbre on performance. Most of the timbre
conditions were clustered together, except in the unusual case of the BBA timbre, which
had statistically lower accuracy than the other timbres. There is no theoretical
foundation for why this specific combination had reduced performance, so implications
cannot be made by this. Theoretically one would expect inverse timbre combinations to
display similar patterns of accuracy. Thusly, the AAB timbre should reflect the accuracy
scores in the BBA timbre. For the most part this is not the case. Omitting the BBA
condition removed the interaction effect between Timbre and Expectancy, and all
remaining timbre combinations had similar accuracy scores. These findings suggest no
effect of timbre on performance or temporal expectancy.
There were also no effects of musical ability. The degree of music experience
was not correlated with overall accuracy. In comparing Figures 5a and 5b with Figure 2
a change in overall patterns of accuracy is evident, but these changes are not systematic
or statistically significant. Performance on the Very Early and Early levels in particular
varied as a function of musical experience. For musically inexperienced persons the
performance on the Very Early level was statistically lower than the Early level, thus
providing one small step towards a TEP pattern. However the overall profiles for both
groups did not indicate a TEP. Figure 5b numerically showed performance of the BBA
timbre to merge closer with other timbre conditions, unlike in Figure 5a where it
remained lower than all other conditions. However the lack of an interaction between
timbre and musical experience suggested this difference between groups was not
significant. The more dispersed variability in patterns for those with more musical
TEMPORAL EXPECTANCY IN TIMBRE AND LOUDNESS 28
experience may simply be a result of imbalanced sample sizes across the musical
experience groups.
This experiment has one main limitation. Previous standard-comparison studies
that examined pitch (Bauer et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2002) only manipulated stimuli
based on the timing and pitch of tones. Thus, only the dimensions of time and pitch
were observed. Studies that demonstrated TEPs in time judgement tasks would only
directly manipulate the time dimension (Barnes & Jones, 2000; Large & Jones, 1999).
In the cases of these studies, all musical dimensions that were not of interest were held
constant during experiments. In the current experiment, the only dimensions of interest
were timbre and time. However, rather than keep the dimension of pitch constant, it was
randomised within distractor sequences across trials. Theoretically, since pitch was held
constant for the standard and comparison tones, and participants were instructed to
ignore distractors, this should not have caused interference with task-relevant timbre
judgements. Despite this, it is possible that given the complexity of timbre perception,
many participants may have confused their perception of timbre as perception of pitch,
instead making inferences on this and having judgement confounded by the randomised
pitches of the distractor sequence. For example, recall the findings by Margulis &
Levine (2006) where the dimension of pitch influenced performance in a timbre
identification task. More recently, Mercer & McKeown (2010) demonstrated that
having distractor sequences at novel pitches interfered with short-term auditory memory
and decreased performance in a standard-comparison memory task on timbre.
To tackle this potential problem of interference, the following experiment sought
to control for task irrelevant dimensions of sound. Since the timbre task did not produce
a TEP, the next logical step was to move away from both pitch and timbre, and instead
explore the dimension of loudness.
Experiment 2: Loudness
Method
Participants
24 adult students (20 females) from Murdoch University participated in the
study as part of their Undergraduate Psychology course. Ages ranged from 18 to 51 (M
= 31.5, SD = 11.6). Participants were recruited by signing up for experiments via the
Sona System, where they received a credit point towards their course in return for their
participation. Musical experience of participants varied between 0 and 11 years (M =
2.0, SD = 3.2).
Stimuli
Stimuli were generated though MATLAB software. Sequences consisted of 10
auditory stimuli per trial. The 1st and 10th stimuli were the standard and comparison
tones respectively, both with identical pitches per trial. Unlike Experiment 1, the 8
distractor stimuli between the standard and comparison now consisted of drum beats,
which served as isochronous clicks with no apparent pitch. Standard and comparison
tones were 400ms long. For each trial the pitch of both the standard and comparison
note was randomised between 262Hz and 494Hz. Loudness conditions were generated
through manipulating velocity, which were measures of intensity coded as Musical
Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) files and synthesised as a wave form. Velocity
ranged from 0-127 possible values, which were multiplied by ratios to give a total of six
standard-comparison loudness conditions. Comparison tone could be softer than the
standard tone by having approximately 67%, 71% or 77% of the standard tone’s
velocity. Conversely, the comparison tone could be louder than the standard tone by
having 130%, 140% or 150% of the standard tone’s velocity. These six loudness
conditions resulted in different degrees of loudness differences, summarised in Table 2.
Unless the onset of the comparison tone was manipulated, IOIs were always 500ms.
Difference in Loudness Velocity of Comparison Relative to Standard
Softer Louder
Substantial 67% 150%
Moderate 71% 140%
Slight 77% 130%
Table 2. Loudness Difference for each Loudness Condition
Procedure
After reading the information sheet and signing consent (see Appendix A), participants
were verbally briefed by the experimenter on their task and given the option to ask any
questions. They then filled out the Musical Experience questionnaire (see Appendix A)
before completing a practice version of the experiment supervised by the experimenter.
Sennheiser HD280 Pro headphones were comfortably placed on and the master volume
was appropriately adjusted so that musical sequences were heard at comfortable
volumes. Practice consisted of 12 trials, where 6 of these had the comparison tone
Substantially Louder than the standard and the other 6 trials had the comparison
Substantially Softer, in randomised order. For each sequence participants were
instructed to compare the loudness of the first tone with the loudness of the last tone,
and to ignore all other sounds in between. As each sequence ended participants were
prompted on-screen to indicate whether they perceived the loudness of the last tone as
“softer” or “louder” than the first tone. Some participants responded using the “P” and
“Q” keys, while others used the “S” and “L” keys, to indicate whether the comparison
was softer or louder respectively. This provided counterbalancing across participants.
Response times were measured, defined as the time period between offset of the
comparison tone and the participant indicating their answer. Unlike Experiment 1,
participants were not explicitly instructed to respond as fast as they could. Upon giving
a response the participant received feedback onscreen indicating whether they answered
correctly or incorrectly, accompanied respectively by a “ding” or “buzz” sound. When
the trial ended an onscreen instruction would say to progress to the next trial by pushing
the “space bar”, which the participant did in their own time. Once the practice
experiment was completed, if performance was unsatisfactory (< 60%) their accuracy
score as a percentage was shown onscreen with instructions to repeat the practice
experiment until obtaining an adequate score. Once performance became satisfactory,
and any further questions were answered, the real experiment was loaded by the
experimenter. The experiment was the same as the practice trials, but with the addition
of temporal expectancy manipulations. At no point in time were the participants told
about the theory behind TEPs or the temporal expectancy manipulations until they
completed the experiment and were debriefed. Participants were warned of varying
degrees of difficulty in loudness differences between the standard and comparison, but
were not provided details of the exact conditions as seen in Table 2.
Results
None of the 24 participants that completed the loudness experiment were
excluded from analysis. All participants scored above the cut off score (60%) in the
practice trials. Some were required to repeat practice to get an adequate score. No
participants repeated the practice more than twice. All data was found to be normally
distributed for parametric analysis (skew < |2.0|, kurtosis < |9.0|). Detailed output for all
conditions can be found in Appendix E.
Mean accuracy across expectancy levels for each individual participant was
briefly examined (see Appendix F). Only one participant conveyed a perfect TEP shape,
while a select few had accuracy peak at the On Time level. Overall there is not much
indication of TEP patterns across participants.
Figure 7. Mean Proportion Correct (0-1) Across Expectancy and Loudness Conditions
Figure 7 illustrates mean accuracy across all conditions. Numerically it can be
seen that only the Moderately Loud condition depicts a negative quadratic function. To
statistically test the hypothesis of whether temporal expectancy manipulations
influenced accuracy in the form of a negatively quadratic function, a 5 (Expectancy;
Very Early, Early, On Time, Late, Very Late) by 6 (Loudness; Substantially Softer,
Moderately Softer, Slightly Softer, Slightly Louder, Moderately Louder, Substantially
Louder) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. Mauchly’s test of sphericity
demonstrated that sphericity was met for Expectancy, χ2(9) = 14, p = .12, and for
Expectancy by Loudness, χ2(209) = 227.82, p = .43, but was violated for Loudness,
χ2(14) = 54.97, p < .001. To reduce Type-I error associated with having unequal
variances in differences of Loudness, a Huynh-Feldt correction was applied. There was
no statistically significant main effect for Expectancy, F(4, 92) = 1.17, p = .33, η2partial
= .048, and no statistically significant quadratic pattern for Expectancy, F(1, 23) = 0.03,
ns, η2partial = .001. A main effect for Loudness was observed, F(2.3, 52.97) = 10.52, p
< .001, η2partial = .314, because the Substantially Softer and Substantially Louder
conditions were easiest in difficulty (see Figure 8).
Figure 8. Mean Proportion Correct (0-1) for Loudness Conditions Averaged Across Expectancy Levels
There was also a statistically significant interaction effect between Expectancy
and Loudness, F(20, 460) = 2.04, p = .005, η2partial = .081. Simple main effects analysis
was conducted and isolated Expectancy at each level of Loudness. Significant effects
were only found in the Moderately Louder and Slightly Louder conditions. For the
Moderately Louder condition, Expectancy met the assumption of sphericity χ2(9) =
8.43, p = .49, and a main effect was found, F(4, 92) = 2.48, p = .05, η2partial = .097. This
effect was statistically significantly quadratic, F(1, 23) = 9.91, p = .005, η2partial = .301,
fitting the shape of a TEP. A significant difference in mean performance was present
between the On Time and Very Late condition, t(23) = 3.17, p = .004 as well as the On
Time and Very Early condition, t(23) = 2.11, p = .046. This demonstrates that, for the
Moderately Louder profile, the accuracy at the On Time level was higher than the Very
Late and Very Early levels, providing evidence for a TEP. Note that this profile was
only observed in the Moderately Louder condition. Expectancy isolated at the Slightly
Louder condition violated sphericity, χ2(9) = 17.26, p = .045. After a Huynh-Feldt
correction a significant main effect for Expectancy was found, F(3.17, 72.82) = 3.12, p
= .03, η2partial = .119. However the only significant difference in means was observed
between the On Time and Very Early condition, t(23) = -3.62, p < .001, indicating that
accuracy was higher when the comparison tone occurred earlier than expected, contrary
to what a TEP would predict.
Simple main effect analysis isolating Loudness at each Expectancy condition
was also conducted. Numerically in Figure 7 it can be seen how the profiles of
Loudness conditions are well spaced out at some points. Indeed, a statistically
significant main effect of Loudness was found at all levels of Expectancy. However this
had no theoretical significance to the hypothesis, so differences were not analysed
further. However, the profile at each Expectancy level had a statistically significant
quadratic effect on Loudness. This function averaged across all levels of Expectancy is
depicted in Figure 8, where mean performance systematically declined from large to
small differences in loudness.
To determine the overall effect of loudness on performance, a one-way
(Loudness; Substantially Softer, Moderately Softer, Slightly Softer, Slightly Louder,
Moderately Louder, Substantially Louder) repeated measures ANOVA was performed
averaging across expectancy levels. Mauchly’s Test showed that sphericity was
violated, χ2(14) = 54.97, p < .001. A main effect was observed after Huynh-Feldt
correction, F(2.3, 52.97) = 10.52, p < .001, η2partial = .314, which was significantly
quadratic, F(1, 23) = 83.89, p < .001, η2partial = .785, as evident in Figure 8. Thus overall,
larger differences in loudness led to higher performance. The mean differences in
performance between Loudness conditions can be observed in Appendix G, where most
differences were statistically significant, except for between two matching pairs of
Loudness conditions (Moderately Louder with Moderately Softer and Slightly Louder
with Slightly Softer). However there was also a statistically significant difference
between the Substantially Louder and Substantially Softer conditions.
Figure 9 depicts mean response times across conditions. Numerically they do
not reflect accuracy scores. This is likely due to lack of instruction to respond as quickly
as possible. Therefore further analyses were not conducted.
Figure 9. Mean Response Times (in seconds) Across Expectancy and Loudness Conditions
Performance based on musical experience was assessed to see if this
demonstrated any differences in temporal expectancy patterns. Musical experience was
defined as the years spent taking lessons to play an instrument. There was no significant
correlation between years of music experience and average accuracy (r = -.20, p = .35).
Participants were sorted between those with 5 or less years of musical experience (N =
20) and those with over 5 years (N = 4). Figure 10 depicts mean performance across all
conditions in both groups. Numerically the quadratic function of the Moderately Louder
condition is much less robust for untrained listeners (Figure 10a) compared to all
listeners (Figure 8). To determine differences between musical experience, a 5
(Expectancy; very early, early, on time, late, very late) by 6 (Loudness; Substantially
Softer, Moderately Softer, Slightly Softer, Slightly Louder, Moderately Louder,
Substantially Louder) by 2 (musical experience; 5 years or less experience, over 5 years
experience) mixed design ANOVA was conducted.
a)
b)
Figure 8. Mean Accuracy for a) Musically Inexperienced Participants, and b) Musically Experienced Participants
Homogeneity of variance was tested via Levene’s test and was satisfied for all
conditions except at the Very Early level for both the Substantially Softer condition,
F(1, 22) = 8.16, p = .01, and Moderately Softer condition, F(1, 22) = 5.87, p = .02.
Sphericity was met for Expectancy, χ2(9) = 15.06, p = .09, and Expectancy by
Loudness, χ2(209) = 229.28, p = .43. Sphericity was violated for Loudness, χ2(14) =
57.28, p < .001, whereby a Huynh-Feldt correction was used. No statistically significant
main effect was observed for Musical Experience, F(1, 22) = 0.61, ns, η2partial = .027.
There was no statistically significant interaction across all three variables, F(20, 440) =
0.41, ns, η2partial = .018. There was also no statistically significant interaction between
Expectancy and Musical Experience, F(4, 88) = 0.88, ns, η2partial = .038, or between
Loudness and Musical Experience after correction, F(2.29, 50.36) = 0.66, ns, η2partial
= .029. This suggested no effect of musical experience on any variables.
Discussion
This experiment did not obtain a TEP except in one condition (Moderately
Louder). This condition had lower accuracy for both the Very Early and Very Late
expectancy points compared to the On Time point, thus providing strong evidence for a
TEP. Regardless, this pattern was only observed in the one loudness condition. By
contrast, the trend in the Slightly Louder condition had increases in accuracy with
greater temporal expectancy violations in having the comparison tone occur earlier than
expected, contrary to what a TEP would indicate. With random patterns across all other
conditions, an overall TEP for performance is not evident. This falls in line with the
findings of Bauer et al. (2015) in conveying lack of TEPs in their standard-comparison
task.
It is not to say that lack of influence of temporal expectancy in this experiment
implies no effect of temporal expectancy on performance in loudness tasks in general.
Recall that benefits of temporal expectancy have been demonstrated for performance on
other loudness based tasks (Geiser et al., 2012; Lawrance et al., 2014). Reasons for lack
of expectancy effects in this experiment cannot be attributed to confounding effects by
other dimensions of sound, as all of these were controlled and kept constant per trial.
The sample size, though smaller than Experiment 1, should still have been adequate to
display some interpretable pattern; it was not too different from those in the experiments
by Jones et al. (2002), and did manage to offer a significant loudness effect despite none
for expectancy. Task difficulty cannot attribute to lack of interpretable patters either, as
performance was not at floor or ceiling levels, and was in fact slightly more variable
than results from Experiment 1. Instead, also given the findings of Bauer et al. (2015), it
may be the standard-comparison task itself that prevents observable expectancy effects.
This experiment did demonstrate an effect of loudness on performance.
Specifically, the larger the loudness difference between the standard and comparison
tone was, the higher the performance of the task. This reflects the findings of Geiser et
al. (2012) in their intensity discrimination tasks, where larger differences in intensity led
to better performance. Additionally, accuracy in this experiment improved almost
regardless of whether the comparison was louder or softer; each difference was
generated by similar ratios to create slight, moderate or substantial differences. As with
Experiment 1, conditions came in pairs that were the inverse of each other, thusly
displaying similar accuracy scores. This is intuitive, as larger differences would be
much easier to detect and would reduce difficulty and uncertainty in answers.
Regardless of these findings, no pair of loudness conditions appeared to demonstrate
similar patterns across temporal expectancy. It is worth noting that accuracy for when
the comparison was Substantially Louder was higher than when it was Substantially
Softer. This indicates a potential effect of large loudness differences on accuracy based
on whether the comparison tone is louder or softer. Overall the effects of these loudness
differences on performance were not relevant to the hypothesis, however they do
demonstrate that the task is still valid in producing significant effects, which may open
ideas to future research.
Although this experiment had an adequate sample size, it was limited by
inability to convey potential differences in musical experience on temporal expectancy.
Only 4 persons were reported as musically experienced. Because of this, isolating this
group revealed no effects of musical experience. A larger number of musically
experienced participants in this experiment may have offered some potential examinable
differences between variables and profiles.
General Discussion
The present study aimed to explore temporal expectancy profiles (TEP) in
standard-comparison tasks that employed timbre and loudness judgements. A TEP in
the form of a negative quadratic function for accuracy across time was hypothesised for
both timbre and loudness tasks. However, neither the timbre nor loudness standard-
comparison tasks offered a TEP. No trace of a quadratic function for accuracy was
observed in the Timbre Experiment. The Loudness Experiment displayed a hint of a
quadratic function in favour of TEP, but only within one of the loudness conditions.
Additionally, another loudness condition displayed a higher accuracy for when the
comparison occurred earlier than expected, contrary to what TEP dictates. Since these
findings were limited only to single loudness conditions, results for this experiment also
provided no robust evidence of a TEP. Overall, the present study failed to refute the null
hypotheses, but could still be prone to Type II error.
Results for both experiments reflect the findings of Bauer et al. (2015), who
could not produce a temporal expectancy profile in standard-comparison pitch
judgement tasks despite a direct replication of Jones et al. (2002). Similarly, Prince et al.
(2009) did not observe TEPs in their standard-comparison pitch task, at least for when
distractors were more musically based. The lack in findings of a TEP in the pitch
domain, and now additionally in the timbre and loudness domains, may suggest that
TEPs may only exist amongst time judgement tasks. However this implication should
not be considered definite. It has still been demonstrated that temporal expectancy does
have some effect on loudness discrimination tasks (Geiser et al., 2012; Lawrance et al.,
2014) and several other pitch tasks (Bausenhart et al. 2007; Ellis & Jones, 2010; Jones
et al., 2006), none of which were standard-comparison tasks. Putting this all together,
the present findings may extend findings by Bauer et al. (2015), and to a certain degree
those by Prince et al. (2009), by providing evidence for the limited capability of a
standard-comparison task in particular to demonstrate TEPs in accuracy scores. To
effectively convey evidence for DAT in non-temporal domains, TEPs may need to be
demonstrated through means other than a standard-comparison task.
No theoretically significant effects of musical experience were observed. In both
experiments musical experience was not correlated with greater performance. The
relatively smaller sample size in Experiment 2 is a limitation since the imbalanced sizes
based on musical experience led to no statistically significant effects for musical
experience at all. By contrast, Experiment 1 presented an interaction between
expectancy levels and musical experience. Despite this, differences in musical
experience still did not demonstrate a significant movement towards a TEP pattern, and
the experiment still faced imbalanced sample sizes. It may be that the measure used to
determine and define musical experience in this study was a limitation. Specifically,
what classified as musical experience was loosely defined as years spent playing an
instrument, and relied on a basic self-report measure (see Appendix A). To properly
analyse the factor of musical experience, it may have been more appropriate to use
Goldsmith’s Musical Sophistication Index as used by Bauer et al. (2015). Without a
proper definition of what counted as musical experience, as well as the uncertainty of
participants’ reports, interpretations of musical experience in this study may be invalid.
Overall however, the lack of musical experience differences in the current study fits
with Bauer et al. (2015) who found no performance differences across musicians and
non-musicians in their study either.
Although there were no apparent effects of timbre, there were effects of
loudness on performance. Experiment 2 demonstrated that on average, larger
differences in loudness between the standard and comparison tone led to increased
accuracy; a finding consistent with Geiser et al. (2012). Results also suggested that this
increased accuracy was regardless of whether the comparison was softer or louder,
evident in Figure 8 where the increase went in both directions of loudness. This implies
that, in tasks where the loudness of one stimulus is compared to another, performance
mainly follows the degree of loudness differences between the stimuli. There was also
enhanced performance when the comparison tone was louder, at least for when the
difference in loudness was large. Future research may test and extend these ideas with
more appropriately designed experiments, for example by investigating the lowest
detectable intensity level where this relationship exists.
There are several potential reasons for why results of the current study did not
demonstrate an effect of temporal expectancy. The simplest explanation was presented
by Bauer et al. (2015), who suggested that paying attention to the right time of the
comparison was not necessary to task performance. Having a non-temporally based task
means that judgements are not based on the time domain, and so attention for the most
part does not focus on time. In the present study participants were instructed to ignore
distractor tones, but DAT would dictate that attention would have been at least
implicitly subject to temporal effects the tones. However regardless of whether temporal
expectancy was implicitly induced, majority of attention would focus on what the
timbre or loudness of the standard and comparison tones were, subsequently leading to
weaker effects in manipulating the when of the comparison onset.
The studies by Jones et al. (2002) and Prince et al. (2009) both involved
standard-comparison tasks on a non-temporal domain of sound, and both appeared to
convey a TEP. One possible reason that the present study could not do the same was
due to musical experience of participants. In Jones et al. (2002), all participants had no
more than 6 years of musical experience. By contrast, Prince et al. (2009) only
examined “musicians” who had at least 8 years of musical training. Perhaps placing
strict constraints on musical experience in these studies allowed for more robust results.
In the present study, and in Bauer et al. (2015), many participants had mixed levels of
musical experience. Therefore differences in the way participants were measured and
split into groups for musical experience may be a factor that contributes to the lack of
temporal expectancy effects.
Participants in the present study were also diverse in age. McAuley et al. (2006)
demonstrated that abilities of entrainment towards events appear to change over
different periods of life and development. Since the present study grouped participants
as a repeated measures analysis, overall performance scores could be confounded by
differences across ages. However there was still a lack of quadratic patterns observed in
the individual performance of participants (Appendix C and F). Thus it is unlikely that
age differences greatly contributed to lack of TEPs in this study, given that TEPs were
not present to begin with. Nonetheless, taking the findings of McAuley et al. (2006) into
consideration, age diversity could be an important factor to consider when examining
temporal expectancy. Future research using larger and more age balanced samples than
the present study has to offer could examine this.
Another explanation for lack of temporal expectancy effects was the pitch
interference in Experiment 1, which is important to consider. Timbre is a complex
concept to grasp, especially when people have no musical training. In Experiment 1 the
pitch of the standard and comparison tones remained constant, however the distractor
tones varied in pitch. Previous studies suggest a complex interaction between pitch and
timbre, despite the two being independent properties, which often affect perception of
timbre and subsequent performance on tasks (Handel & Erickson, 2004; Krumhansl &
Iverson, 1992; Margulis & Levine, 2006; Mercer & McKeown, 2010). Furthermore
Prince et al. (2009), as an explanation to their results on reaction times and lack of
temporal expectancy effects in their more tonal sequences, argued that pitch is a much
more accessible perceptual dimension of sound, to a point where it is difficult to ignore
even when it is task irrelevant. Thus it may be that using randomised pitches of tones
within sequences drew more attention to pitch and left little attention for forming
temporal expectancies. Therefore the lack of a TEP in Experiment 1 of this study may
conform to the findings of previous studies in demonstrating a bias of attention towards
pitch, thus interfering with the perception of timbre and time domains.
The possibility of pitch interference has implications on the discriminability and
salience of other musical dimensions. There have been several cases where dimensions
of musical properties seem to combine and consequently influence results. In particular,
among the conflicts between pitch and timbre, there have been reports of volume
influencing time duration judgements (Rammsayer & Lina, 1991) and pitch
discriminations (Rinne et al., 2006). In fact, an early study by Melara & Marks (1990)
suggest that perception of loudness, pitch and timbre are all processed jointly. They
proposed a model dictating interconnectedness of these three dimensions, where
information being selected from one dimension is contextualised in part by the other
two, whether or not they may be relevant to a task. Given that the dimension of time is
theoretically perceived separately, the model therefore additionally offers an
explanation as to why TEPs are common only amongst time duration experiments
(Barnes & Jones, 2000; Large & Jones, 1999; McAuley & Jones, 2003). The
experiments in these studies were only concerned with manipulating time specifically
for the judgement of time. As a result there may have been fewer confounding effects of
any other dimensions involved, providing more robust patterns in temporal expectancy.
The Interconnectedness of these musical dimensions may further explain lack of results
in Experiment 1 of the present study, however it does not explain findings of
Experiment 2, which controlled for task irrelevant domains of sound.
The final explanation that can be offered for the findings of this study is the
process of reactive attending. This form of attending was also discussed by Barnes &
Jones (2000) and Jones et al. (2002). It describes stimulus attending as a brief, very
sudden change in attention from an expected point to an unexpected point along time.
Specifically, attention reflexively shifts to the temporal area just after the onset of a
sound. The alternate form of attention to this is anticipatory attending, which involves
more stable attentional shifts anticipating the onset of tones. When reactive attending is
combined with anticipatory attending, the latter forms the foundation of DAT. Some
studies however have demonstrated a stronger lean towards reactive attending than
anticipatory attending. In their pitch discrimination tasks, Barnes & Johnston (2010)
reported that attention was drawn more towards unexpected events than events that fell
at expected points in time, resulting in higher accuracy at the more unexpected points in
time. They manipulated the onset of target tones to occur earlier, later or on time based
on isochronous sequences. When the position of the target tone was known to
participants there was no difference across expectancy manipulations, much like the
findings of this study. However Barnes & Johnston also tested for when the target
position became unknown. One condition involved a cue preceding the target, which led
to increased performance for when the target onset was early or late. In another
condition when there was no cue, performance was only higher for when the target
onset was later than expected. Barnes & Johnston used reactive attending as an
explanation for these results. This study also seemed to display more of this form of
attention. Specifically, the lack of temporal expectancy effects suggests that the tone
before the comparison note acted as a cue to shift attention fully to the entire temporal
space that followed it, preparing the participant for any onset of the comparison tone at
more unexpected points of time. A hint of this appeared in the one of the loudness
conditions in Experiment 2, where higher accuracy was observed in the Very Early
condition as opposed to the On Time condition. Shifting attention to the temporal space
on the whole would also have eliminated the entrained temporal expectancy from the
rest of the sequence, therefore removing accuracy differences across expectancy levels
and favouring reactive attending over anticipatory attending.
The present study offers insight for the investigation of temporal expectancy in
non-temporal dimensions of musical perception. Evidently TEPs did not exist for timbre
or loudness in the standard-comparison tasks of this study. In terms of DAT, instead
there was a stronger lean toward reactive attending than anticipatory attending.
However, other studies have shown that effects of temporal expectancy still exist in
dimensions of pitch (Jones et al., 2002; Prince et al., 2009) and loudness (Geiser et al.,
2012). Given this, future research should still continue to examine temporal expectancy
in tasks involving non-temporal dimensions of sound. As a precaution, the
interrelatedness of auditory dimensions (Melara & Marks, 1990) should be explored and
taken into account before designing an adequate task that can distinguish the time
dimension from the non-temporal dimension being tested. This would involve removing
interference from other auditory dimensions by isolating them, which may be difficult
particularly for timbre tasks given the complexity of timbre. Because of this it is
encouraged that future research more thoroughly examines performance on loudness
tasks, especially given the effects of loudness observed in Experiment 2. Overall the
generalisability of DAT remains indefinite. This study, alongside the findings of Bauer
et al. (2015), narrows down how to solve this problem by demonstrating how
inconsistent the standard-comparison task is in providing evidence for dynamic
attending, suggesting that alternate tasks are required for a more valid investigation into
the theory.
References
Barnes, R., & Johnston, H. (2010). The role of timing deviations and target position
uncertainty on temporal attending in a serial auditory pitch discrimination task.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 341-355.
doi:10.1080/17470210902925312
Barnes, R., & Jones, M. R. (2000). Expectancy, attention, and time. Cognitive
Psychology, 41, 254-311. doi:10.1006/cogp.2000.0738
Bauer, A.-K. R., Jaeger, M., Thorne, J. D., Bendixen, A., & Debener, S. (2015). The
auditory dynamic attending theory revisited: A closer look at the pitch
comparison task. Brain Research, 1626, 198-210.
doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2015.04.032
Bausenhart, K. M., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2007). Knowing when to hear aids what to
hear. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1610-1615.
doi:10.1080/17470210701536419
Boltz, M. G. (1993). The generation of temporal and melodic expectancies during
musical listening. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 585-600.
doi:10.3758/bf03211736
Correa, Á., Lupiáñez, J., & Tudela, P. (2005). Attentional preparation based on
temporal expectancy modulates processing at the perceptual level. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 12, 328-334. doi:10.3758/bf03196380
Ellis, R. J., & Jones, M. R. (2010). Rhythmic context modulates foreperiod effects.
Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 2274-2288.
doi:10.3758/APP.72.8.2274
Geiser, E., Notter, M., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2012). A Corticostriatal Neural System
Enhances Auditory Perception through Temporal Context Processing. The
Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 6177-6182. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5153-11.2012
Handel, S., & Erickson, M. L. (2004). Sound Source Identification: The Possible Role
of Timbre Transformations. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21,
587-610. doi:10.1525/mp.2004.21.4.587
Hoch, L., Tyler, M. D., & Tillmann, B. (2013). Regularity of unit length boosts
statistical learning in verbal and nonverbal artificial languages. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 20, 142-147. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0309-8
Jones, M. R. (1976). Time, our lost dimension: toward a new theory of perception,
attention, and memory. Psychological Review, 83, 323-355. doi:10.1037//0033-
295X.83.5.323
Jones, M. R., & Boltz, M. (1989). Dynamic attending and responses to time.
Psychological Review, 96, 459-491. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.96.3.459
Jones, M. R., Johnston, H. M., & Puente, J. (2006). Effects of auditory pattern structure
on anticipatory and reactive attending. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 59-96.
doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.01.003
Jones, M. R., Jones, M. R., & Moynihan. Temporal Aspects of Stimulus-Driven
Attending in Dynamic Arrays. Psychological Science, 13, 313-319.
doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00458
Jones, M. R., Moynihan, H., MacKenzie, N., & Puente, J. (2002). Temporal Aspects of
Stimulus-Driven Attending in Dynamic Arrays. Psychological Science, 13, 313-
319. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00458
Klein, J. M., & Jones, M. R. (1996). Effects of attentional set and rhythmic complexity
on attending. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 34-46. doi:10.3758/bf03205473
Krumhansl, C. L., & Iverson, P. (1992). Perceptual interactions between musical pitch
and timbre. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception &
Performance, 18, 739-751. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.3.739
Lange, K. (2009). Brain correlates of early auditory processing are attenuated by
expectations for time and pitch. Brain and Cognition, 69, 127-137.
doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2008.06.004
Large, E. W., & Jones, M. R. (1999). The dynamics of attending: How people track
time-varying events. Psychological Review, 106, 119-159. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.106.1.119
Lawrance, E. L. A., Harper, N. S., Cooke, J. E., & Schnupp, J. W. H. (2014). Temporal
predictability enhances auditory detection. The Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 135, EL357-EL363. doi:10.1121/1.4879667
Margulis, E. H., & Levine, W. H. (2006). Timbre priming effects and expectation in
melody. Journal of New Music Research, 35, 175-182.
doi:10.1080/09298210600835042
Marmel, F., & Tillmann, B. (2009). Tonal Priming Beyond Tonics. Music Perception:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 211-221. doi:10.1525/mp.2009.26.3.211
Marmel, F., Tillmann, B., & Delbé, C. (2010). Priming in melody perception: Tracking
down the strength of cognitive expectations. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 36, 1016-1028.
doi:10.1037/a0018735
McAuley, J. D., & Fromboluti, E. K. (2014). Attentional entrainment and perceived
event duration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369,
20130401-20130401. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0401
McAuley, J. D., & Jones, M. R. (2003). Modeling Effects of Rhythmic Context on
Perceived Duration: A Comparison of Interval and Entrainment Approaches to
Short-Interval Timing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance, 29, 1102-1125. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.6.1102
McAuley, J. D., Jones, M. R., Holub, S., Johnston, H. M., & Miller, N. S. (2006). The
time of our lives: Life span development of timing and event tracking. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 348-367. doi:10.1037/0096-
3445.135.3.348
McAuley, J. D., & Kidd, G. R. (1998). Effect of deviations from temporal expectations
on tempo discrimination of isochronous tone sequences. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1786-1800.
doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1786
Melara, R. D., & Marks, L. E. (1990). Interaction among auditory dimensions: Timbre,
pitch, and loudness. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 169-178.
doi:10.3758/BF03207084
Mercer, T., & McKeown, D. (2010). Interference in short-term auditory memory. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1256-1265.
doi:10.1080/17470211003802467
Penel, A., & Riess Jones, M. (2005). Speeded Detection of a Tone Embedded in a
Quasi-isochronous Sequence: Effects of a Task-Irrelevant Temporal Irregularity.
Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 371-388.
doi:10.1525/mp.2005.22.3.371
Prince, J. B., & Schmuckler. The effect of task and pitch structure on pitch-time
interactions in music. Memory & Cognition, 37, 368-381.
doi:10.3758/MC.37.3.368
Rammsayer, T. H., & Lima, S. D. (1991). Duration discrimination of filled and empty
auditory intervals: Cognitive and perceptual factors. Perception &
Psychophysics, 50, 565-574. doi:10.3758/bf03207541
Rinne, T., Särkkä, A., Degerman, A., Schröger, E., & Alho, K. (2006). Two separate
mechanisms underlie auditory change detection and involuntary control of
attention. Brain Research, 1077, 135-143.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.043
Russo, F. A., & Thompson, W. F. (2005). An interval size illusion: The influence of
timbre on the perceived size of melodic intervals. Perception & Psychophysics,
67, 559-568. doi:10.3758/bf03193514
Schwartze, M., Rothermich, K., Schmidt-Kassow, M., & Kotz, S. A. (2011). Temporal
regularity effects on pre-attentive and attentive processing of deviance.
Biological Psychology, 87, 146-151. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.02.021
Selchenkova, T., Francois, C., Schoen, D., Corneyllie, A., Perrin, F, et al. (2014).
Metrical presentation boosts implicit learning of artificial grammar. PloS ONE,
9(11), e112233. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112233
Selchenkova, T., Jones, M. R., & Tillmann, B. (2014). The influence of temporal
regularities on the implicit learning of pitch structures. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 67, 2360-2380. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.929155
Tillmann, B., & Bigand, E. (2010). Musical Structure Processing after Repeated
Listening: Schematic Expectations Resist Veridical Expectations. Musicae
Scientiae, 14, 33-47. doi:10.1177/10298649100140s204
Tillmann, B., Bigand, E., Escoffier, N., & Lalitte, P. (2006). The influence of musical
relatedness on timbre discrimination. European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 18, 343-358. doi:10.1080/09541440500269548
Werner, L. A., Parrish, H. K., & Holmer, N. M. (2009). Effects of temporal uncertainty
and temporal expectancy on infants’ auditory sensitivitya). The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 125, 1040-1049. doi:10.1121/1.3050254