A series of experiments demonstrated novel effects of amplitude envelope on associative memory, with tones exhibiting naturally decaying amplitude envelopes (e.g., those made by two wine glasses clinking) better associated with target objects than amplitude-invariant tones. In Experiment 1 participants learned associations between household objects and 4-note tone sequences constructed of spectrally matched pure tones with either “flat” or “percussive” amplitude envelopes. Those hearing percussive tones correctly recalled significantly more sequence–object associations. Experiment 2 demonstrated that participants hearing percussive tones learned the associations more quickly. Experiment 3 used “reverse percussive” tones (percussive tones played backwards) to test whether differences in overall energy might account for this effect, finding they did not lead to the same level of performance as percussive tones. Experiment 4 varied the envelope at encoding and retrieval to determine which stage of the task was most affected by the envelope manipulation. Participants hearing percussive tones at both encoding and retrieval performed significantly better than the other three groups (i.e., flat at encoding/percussive at retrieval, etc.). We conclude that amplitude envelope plays an important role in learning and memory, a finding with relevance to psychological research on audition and associative memory, as well as practical relevance for improving human–computer interface design.
BachD. R., NeuhoffJ. G., PerrigW., & SeifritzE. (2009). Looming sounds as warning signals: The function of motion cues. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 74, 28–33.
5.
BaddeleyA., LewisV., EldridgeM., & ThomsonN. (1984). Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 518–540.
6.
BeckD. M., & KastnerS. (2008). Top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in biasing competition in the human brain. Vision Research, 49, 1154–1165.
BowerG. H., & HolyoakK. (1973). Encoding and recognition memory for naturalistic sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 360–366.
9.
BrancucciA., & San MartiniP. (2003). Hemispheric asymmetries in the perception of rapid (timbral) and slow (nontimbral) amplitude fluctuations of complex tones. Neuropsychology, 17, 451–457.
10.
CanévetG., & ScharfB. (1990). The loudness of sounds that increase and decrease continuously in level. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 2136–2142.
11.
ChuenL., & SchutzM. (in press). The unity assumption facilitates cross-modal binding of musical, non-speech stimuli: The role of spectral and amplitude cues. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.
12.
CraikF. I. M., GovoniR., Naveh-BenjaminM., & AndesonN. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 159–180.
13.
DewhurstS. A., & KnottL. M. (2010). Investigating the encoding—Retrieval match in recognition memory: Effects of experimental design, specificity, and retention interval. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1101–1109.
14.
DrullmanR., FestenJ. M., & PlompR. (1994). Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1053–1064.
EdworthyJ., & HardsR. (1999). Learning auditory warnings: The effects of sound type, verbal labelling and imagery on the identification of alarm sounds. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24, 603–618.
17.
EdworthyJ., & HellierE. (2005). Fewer but better auditory alarms will improve patient safety. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14, 212–215.
18.
EdworthyJ., & HellierE. (2006). Alarms and human behaviour: Implications for medical alarms. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 97, 12–17.
19.
EdworthyJ., HellierE., TitchenerK., NaweedA., & RoelsR. (2011). Heterogeneity in auditory alarm sets makes them easier to learn. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 41, 136–146.
20.
ErnstM. O., & BanksM. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415, 429–433.
21.
FendrichR., & CorballisP. M. (2001). The temporal cross-capture of audition and vision. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 719–725.
22.
FreedD. J. (1990). Auditory correlates of perceived mallet hardness for a set of recorded percussive sound events. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 311–322.
23.
GaverW. W. (1993). What in the world do we hear?: An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 5, 1–29.
24.
GibbonJ. (1977). Scalar expectancy theory and Weber's law in animal timing. Psychological Review, 84, 279–325.
25.
GillardJ., & SchutzM. (2013). The importance of amplitude envelope: Surveying the temporal structure of sounds in perceptual research. Proceedings of the Sound and Music Computing Conference (pp. 62–68). Stockholm, Sweden.
26.
GiordanoB. L., RocchessoD., & McAdamsS. (2010). Integration of acoustical information in the perception of impacted sound sources: The role of information accuracy and exploitability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 462–476.
27.
GoswamiU., ThomsonJ., RichardsonU., StainthorpR., HughesD., RosenS., & ScottS. K. (2002). Amplitude envelope onsets and developmental dyslexia: A new hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 10911–10916.
28.
GrassiM. (2010). Sex difference in subjective duration of looming and receding sounds. Perception, 39, 1424–1426.
29.
GrassiM., & CascoC. (2009). Audiovisual bounce-inducing effect: Attention alone does not explain why the discs are bouncing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 235–243.
30.
GrassiM., & CascoC. (2010). Audiovisual bounce–inducing effect: When sound congruence affects grouping in vision. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 378–386.
31.
GrassiM., & CascoC. (2012). Revealing the origin of the audiovisual bounce-inducing effect. Seeing and Perceiving, 25, 223–233.
32.
GrassiM., & DarwinC. J. (2006). The subjective duration of ramped and damped sounds. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1382–1392.
33.
GygiB., KiddG., & WatsonC. S. (2004). Spectral-temporal factors in the identification of environmental sounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 1252–1265.
34.
HallD. A., & MooreD. R. (2003). Auditory neuroscience: The salience of looming sounds. Current Biology, 13, R91–R93.
35.
HannonB., & DanemanM. (2007). Prospective memory: The relative effects of encoding, retrieval, and the match between encoding and retrieval. Memory, 15, 572–604.
36.
HicksJ. L., & MarshR. L. (2000). Toward specifying the attentional demands of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1483–1498.
37.
HoutsmaA. J. M., RossingT. D., & WagennarsW. M. (1987). Auditory demonstrations on compact disc. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
38.
IrinoT., & PattersonR. (1996). Temporal asymmetry in the auditory system. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 2316–2331.
39.
JacobyL. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.
40.
JorisP. X., SchreinerC. E., & ReesA. (2004). Neural processing of amplitude-modulated sounds. Physiological Reviews, 84, 541–577.
41.
KangS. H. K., McDermottK. B., & CohenS. M. (2008). The mnemonic advantage of processing fitness-relevant information. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1151–1156.
42.
KellerP. E., & StevensC. (2004). Meaning from environmental sounds: Types of signal-referent relations and their effect on recognizing auditory icons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 3–12.
43.
KlatzkyR. L., PaiD. K., & KrotkovE. P. (2000). Perception of material from contact sounds. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9, 399–410.
44.
KubovyM., & SchutzM. (2010). Audio-visual objects. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 41–61.
45.
LacherezP., SeahE. L., & SandersonP. (2007). Overlapping melodic alarms are almost indiscriminable. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49, 637–645.
46.
LutfiR. A. (2001). Auditory detection of hollowness. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 1010–1019.
47.
MandlerG. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 87, 252–271.
48.
McAdamsS., WinsbergS., DonnadieuS., De SoeteG., & KrimphoffJ. (1995). Perceptual scaling of synthesized musical timbres: Common dimensions, specificities, and latent subject classes. Psychological Research, 58, 177–192.
49.
MillerG. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
50.
MooreB. C. J. (1997). An introduction to the psychology of hearing (4th ed.). London: Academic Press.
51.
NairneJ. S., & PandeiradaJ. N. S. (2008). Adaptive memory. Psychological Science, 17, 239–243.
52.
NeuhoffJ. G. (1998). Perceptual bias for rising tones. Nature, 395, 123–124.
53.
NeuhoffJ. G. (2004). NeuhoffJ. G. (Ed.), Ecological psychoacoustics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.
54.
NeuhoffJ. G., PlanisekR., & SeifritzE. (2009). Adaptive sex differences in auditory motion perception: Looming sounds are special. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 225–234.
55.
OlsenK. N. (2014). Intensity dynamics and loudness change: A review of methods and perceptual processes. Acoustics Australia, 42, 159–165.
56.
OlsenK. N., & StevensC. (2012). Forward masking of dynamic acoustic intensity: Effects of intensity region and end-level. Perception, 41, 594–605.
57.
PaivioA., WalshM., & BonsT. (1994). Concreteness effects on memory: When and why?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1196–1204.
58.
PatelA. (2011). Why would musical training benefit the neural encoding of speech? The OPERA hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–14.
59.
PattersonR. (1994). The sound of a sinusoid: Spectral models. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 1409–1418.
60.
PattersonR., & AllerhandM. H. (1995). Time-domain modeling of peripheral auditory processing: A modular architecture and a software platform. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98, 1890–1894.
61.
PattersonR., & IrinoT. (1998). Modeling temporal asymmetry in the auditory system. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 2967–2979.
62.
PhansalkarS., EdworthyJ., HellierE., SegerD. L., SchedlbauerA., AveryA. J., & BatesD. W. (2010). A review of human factors principles for the design and implementation of medication safety alerts in clinical information systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 17, 493–501.
63.
PhillipsD. P., HallS. E., & BoehnkeS. E. (2002). Central auditory onset responses, and temporal asymmetries in auditory perception. Hearing Research, 167, 192–205.
64.
PonsotE., SusiniP., & MeunierS. (2015). A robust asymmetry in loudness between rising- and falling-intensity tones. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 907–920.
65.
PostmanL., JenkinsW. O., & PostmanD. L. (1948). An experimental comparison of active recall and recognition. The American Journal of Psychology, 61, 511–519.
66.
RogersN. (2005). Verbal labels affect memory for musical timbre. Proceedings of the Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology (pp. 1–9). Montreal, Quebec.
67.
SandersonP., LiuD., & JenkinsS. A. (2009). Auditory displays in anesthesiology. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology, 22, 788–795.
68.
SandersonP., WeeA. N., & LacherezP. (2006). Learnability and discriminability of melodic medical equipment alarms. Anaesthesia, 61, 142–147.
69.
SchlauchR. S., RiesD. T., & DiGiovanniJ. J. (2001). Duration discrimination and subjective duration for ramped and damped sounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 2880–2887.
70.
SchutzM. (2008). Seeing music? What musicians need to know about vision. Empirical Musicology Review, 3, 83–108.
71.
SchutzM. (2009). Crossmodal integration: The search for unity (doctoral thesis). University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
72.
SchutzM. (in press). Clarifying amplitude envelope's crucial role in auditory perception. Canadian Acoustics.
73.
SchutzM., & KubovyM. (2009). Causality and cross-modal integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1791–1810.
SchutzM., & VaisbergJ. M. (2014). Surveying the temporal structure of sounds used in music perception. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31, 288–296.
Simmons-SternN. R., BudsonA. E., & AllyB. A. (2010). Music as a memory enhancer in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychologia, 48, 3164–3167.
79.
SnodgrassJ. G., & CorwinJ. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50.
80.
SteckerG. C., & HafterE. R. (2000). An effect of temporal asymmetry on loudness. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 3358–3368.
81.
StephanK. L., SmithS. E., MartinR. L., ParkerS. P. A., & McAnallyK. I. (2006). Learning and retention of associations between auditory icons and denotative referents: Implications for the design of auditory warnings. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48, 288–299.
82.
TeghtsoonianR., TeghtsoonianM., & CanévetG. (2000). The perception of waning signals: Decruitment in loudness and perceived size. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 637–646.
83.
TeghtsoonianR., TeghtsoonianM., & CanévetG. (2005). Sweep-induced acceleration in loudness change and the “bias for rising intensities”. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 699–712.
ThomsonD. M., & TulvingE. (1970). Associative encoding and retrieval: Weak and strong cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 255–262.
86.
TulvingE. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 26, 1–12.
87.
TulvingE., & ThomsonD. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373.
88.
UncapherM., & WagnerA. D. (2009). Posterior parietal cortex and episodic encoding: Insights from fMRI subsequent memory effects and dual-attention theory. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 91, 139–154.
89.
ValletG., ShoreD. I., & SchutzM. (2014). Exploring the role of the amplitude envelope in duration estimation. Perception, 43, 616–630.
90.
VatakisA., & SpenceC. (2007). Crossmodal binding: Evaluating the “unity assumption” using audiovisual speech stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 744–756.
91.
VosJ., & RaschR. (1981). The perceptual onset of musical tones. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 323–335.
92.
WalkerI., & HulmeC. (1999). Concrete words are easier to recall than abstract words: Evidence for a semantic contribution to short–term serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1256–1271.
93.
WalkerJ. T., & ScottK. J. (1981). Auditory-visual conflicts in the perceived duration of lights, tones and gaps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1327–1339.
94.
WallaceW. T. (1994). Memory for music: Effect of melody on recall of text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1471–1485.
95.
WarrenW. H., & VerbruggeR. R. (1984). Auditory perception of breaking and bouncing events: A case study in ecological acoustics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 704–712.
96.
WeardenJ. (2003). Chapter 2: Applying the scalar timing model to human time psychology: Progress and challenges. In Time and mind II: Information processing perspectives (pp. 21–39). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
97.
WeeA. N., & SandersonP. (2008). Are melodic medical equipment alarms easily learned?Anesthesia & Analgesia, 106, 501–508.
98.
WelchR. B., & WarrenD. H. (1980). Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 638–667.
99.
YonelinasA. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 441–517.
