Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Listener retention of stimulus duration was studied. Measures of difference-limen-for-duration (DLD) between standard and comparison stimuli were obtained for intervals with and without intervening noise bursts, including an intervening condition with a lateralization cue. The DLD was significantly higher when intervening sounds were present, but a lateralization cue mitigated the interference, presumably by allowing attention to be more readily allocated to retention of the standard. General interference results are in keeping with those reported for pitch, loudness, and timbre retention, but not for retention of gap length. Release from interference with a lateralization cue is akin to that reported for pitch. Overall, the ramifications of retroactive interference on duration retention are more similar to those reported for pitch than for another temporal-based attribute—namely, gap length.

Keywords

duration discrimination memory psychoacoustics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abel

S. M.

(1972). Duration discrimination of noise and tone bursts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 1219–1223.

Deutsch

(1970). Tones and numbers: Specificity of interference in immediate memory. Science, 168, 1604–1605.

Deutsch

(1978). Interference in pitch memory as a function of ear input. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 283–287.

Deutsch

(1986). Recognition of durations embedded in temporal patterns. Perception & Psychophysics, 39, 179–186.

Gerhardt

H. C.

Doherty

J. A.

(1988). Acoustic communication in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor: Evolutionary and neurological implications. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 162, 261–278.

Jump

R. L.

Ries

D. T.

(2008). Effect of interaural level and phase cues on intervening interference in auditory working memory for loudness. Hearing Research, 240, 112–115.

Kaernbach

(1990). A single-interval adjustment-matrix (SIAM) procedure for unbiased adaptive testing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 2645–2655.

Kallman

H. J.

Cameron

P. A.

Beckstead

J. W.

Joyce

(1987). Ear of input as a determinant of pitch-memory interference. Memory & Cognition, 15, 454–460.

Kingston

Kawahara

Chambless

Mash

Brenner-Alsop

(2009). Contextual effects on the perception of duration. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 297–320.

10.

Lewis

P. A.

Miall

R. C.

(2003). Distinct systems for automatic and cognitively controlled time measurement: Evidence from neuroimaging. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13, 250–255.

11.

Mercer

McKeown

(2010). Interference in short-term auditory memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1256–1265.

12.

Monaghan

White

Merkx

M. M.

(2013). Disambiguating durational cues for speech segmentation. JASA Express Letters, 134, EL45–EL51.

13.

Narins

P. M.

Capranica

R. R.

(1978). Communicative significance of the two-note call of the treeforg Eleutherodactylus coqui. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 127, 1–9.

14.

Nelson

D. A.

(1988). Feature weighting in species song recognition by the field sparrow (Spizella pusilla). Behaviour, 106, 158–182.

15.

Rammsayer

T. H.

Lima

S. D.

(1991). Duration discrimination of filled and empty auditory intervals: Cognitive and perceptual factors. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 565–574.

16.

Ries

D. T.

DiGiovanni

J. J.

(2007). Release from interference in auditory working memory for pitch. Hearing Research, 230, 64–72.

17.

Ries

D. T.

Hamilton

T. R.

Grossmann

A. J.

(2010). The effects of intervening interference on working memory for sound location as a function of inter-comparison interval. Hearing Research, 268, 227–233.

18.

Ries

D. T.

Woods

Smith

(2013). Retention of gap length in normal-hearing listeners. Perception, 42, 994–997.

Release from Retroactive Retention Interference for Acoustic Duration

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References