Tonal Perception Thresholds and Pitch Identification by Absolute Pitch Possessors Dr. Scott D. Lipscomb 1 Dr. Janina Fyk 2 1 The University of Texas at

Tonal Perception Thresholds and Pitch

Identification by Absolute Pitch Possessors

Dr. Scott D. Lipscomb1

Dr. Janina Fyk2

1The University of Texas at San Antonio

and Northwestern University (Fall 2001)

2Zielona Gora, Poland

August 9, 2001 Society for Music Perception & Cognition

2

Everything is Relative

“Father had absolute pitch,” as men say. But it seemed to disturb him;

he seemed half ashamed of it. “Everything is relative,” he said,” Nothing but fools and taxes are

absolute.”

—Charles Ives (1969, p. 111)cited in Costall (1985)


3

Research Questions1. Using “real” piano tones, what is the

threshold duration required for the consistently accurate identification of pitches by AP Possessors?

2. Is there a relationship between established threshold and frequency?

3. Does Response Time vary in an interpretable manner in relation to either (or both) frequency and/or duration?


4

Defining Absolute Pitch (AP)

vs. Relative PitchAP - “The ability to identify the pitch of a musical tone or produce a musical tone at a given pitch without the use of an external reference pitch.” (Takeuchi & Hulse, 1993)

Passive Absolute Pitch (PAP) vs. Active Absolute Pitch (AAP); Kries (1892), Abraham (1901), Köhler (1910), Teplov (1947), Jourdain (1997)

PAP – the ability to recognize & name a heard pitchAAP – the ability to sing (or otherwise produce) the pitch of a given tone

RP – the ability to identify a pitch by identifying the pitch distance between consecutive and/or simultaneous tones in relation to a pitch reference


5

The Genesis of AP:Proposed Theories

Innate/genetic – Stumpf (1890), Kries, (1892), Abraham (1901), Revesz (1913), Bachem (1937)

Learned – Meyer (1899), Oakes (1951), Cuddy (1968), Brady (1970)

“imprinting” – Copp (1916) claimed that 80% of young children can be taught to produce Middle C

Unlearning – Abraham (1901), Watt (1917)

Convergence (synergy) – Jeffres (1962), Ward (1963), Baharloo, et al. (1998)


6

AP is Not “All or Nothing”Relative Principal of Disposition (Franklin, 1972, pp. 27-28)

AAP & PAPIncluding special case of timbre dependent AP, e.g., Butler’s (1992) “absolute piano”

Standard note pitch – the ability to remember a select pitchRegional pitch – the ability to roughly assess the frequency range within which the tone liesRelative Pitch


7

Varying Accuracy of APMiyazaki’s (1988) Categories

Level of AccuracyPrecise AP (~85-100%)Imprecise AP (~45-85%)Non-AP (0-45%)


8

Varying Accuracy of APwhite keys vs. black keys

Miyazaki (1988, 1990), Takehuchi and Hulse (1991)

White keys (“diatonic”) identified at a higher level of accuracy than black keys (“chromatic”)


9

Thresholds for AP Identification

Piazza & Giulio (1982, 1983)60 ms @ 50 Hz10 ms @ 1000 Hz

Fyk (1985)9-24 ms @ 110, 220, 440, & 1000 Hz

Vocalize matching pitch

Fyk (1987)6 ms @ 1000 HzTuning tone generator (3 training sessions)


11

Research Questions1. Using “real” piano tones, what is the

threshold duration required for the consistently accurate identification of pitches by AP Possessors?




12

Alternative Hypotheses1. Threshold unknown for natural instrument

timbres; anticipate duration will need to be longer than previous research suggests

– Time to reach Sustain level of amplitude envelope (ADSR)

– Non-periodic aspects of onset

2. Yes, shorter durations will be required for AP possessors to identify high frequency tones.

Number of cycles that occur

3. Yes, shorter RT for longer tonesMore certainty concerning pitch

Method


14

MethodSubjects – 4 highly-trained musicians possessing AP; all were skilled pianistsProcedure:

Familiarize with brief tones (exploratory)Warm-up procedure

12 stimuli2 randomly selected pitches for each duration except 5ms; each pitch class occurred one time

Main Experiment91 stimuli (random presentation order)

13 piano tones (C4 to C5)7 durations (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 ms)

Hear tone, identify, press key, 15 sec delay w/distracter midway … repeat for remaining stimuli


15

Stimulus Choice(debate)

Ward & Burns (1982) state that AP stimuli “should not involve extraneous cues” (p. 436); later conclude that “one should use for the study of AP only pure tone stimuli” (p. 438)

Complex stimuli consist of “several pitches”Other research suggests that the complexity of piano tones assist in AP idenfication tasks; Ward (1963), Cuddy (1968), Terhardt & Seewan, (1983)

Ecological validity important to this investigation, so used piano tones


16

Stimulus PreparationDigital Recording (16-bit, 44.1 KHz) of Yamaha grand piano in UTSA recital hall

Captured 2.5 to 3 sec. tones from C4 – C5

Identify initial attack (subjective)Locate “0-crossing” closest to 35ms mark, then delete remainder of fileCreate shorter durations by deleting 5 ms from end of file

Once again, using 0-crossing

Example


17

Stimulus Example (C4)

Complete Tone

5 ms 10 ms 15 ms 20 ms 25 ms 30 ms 35 ms


18

DistracterGliding Tonal Cluster

Purpose is to erase/confuse (Butler & Ward, 1988)

Consisted of:White keys from G3 to G4, pitch shifted downBlack keys from G#3 to F#4, pitch shifted upHeavy modulation

Hear Distracter


19

Response MechanismIMR Lab


20

Response MechanismIMR Lab


21

Response Mechanism“Prepared Keyboard”


22

Response Mechanism“Prepared Keyboard”

ASCII code for pressed key saved for later analysis

Results

Results


25

Number of Correct Responses

3025

2218

0

10

20

30

Number Correct

S1 S2 S3 S4

Subject

Total Number Correct by Subject(possible = 91 )

By Age(almost)


26


0

5

10

15

20

Nu

mb

er

Co

rre

ct

5 m

s

10 m

s

15 m

s

20 m

s

25 m

s

30 m

s

35 m

s

Note Duration

Total Number Correct by Durationpossible = 48 (12 pitch classes x 4 subjects)

chance = 4


27


02468

1012

Number Correct

C4

C#4 D4

D#4 E4

F4

F#4 G4

G#4 A4

A#4 B4

C5

Pitch Class

Total Number Correct by Pitch Classpossible = 28 (7 durations x 4 subjects)

chance = 4

Black Keysvs.

White Keys

F Penta-tonic


28

Mean Error Range (ABS)Mean Error (ABS)

by Pitch Class

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

C4

C#4

D4

D#4

E4

F4

F#4

G4

G#4

A4

A#4

B4

C5

Pitch Class

Sem

ito

nes

5 ms

10 ms

15 ms

20 ms

25 ms

30 ms

35 ms

Shorter durations exhibit larger errors

Lower pitches result in larger errors


29

Response Time

0500

1000150020002500

3000350040004500

mil

lise

co

nd

s

Tone Duration

Mean Response Time(by Duration)


30

Response Time

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

mil

lise

co

nd

s

C4 C#4 D4 D#4 E4 F4 F#4 G4 G#4 A4 A#4 B4 C5

Pitch

Mean Response Time(by Pitch)


31

Research Questions Answered

1. Using “real” piano tones, what is the threshold duration required for the consistently accurate identification of pitches by AP Possessors?

• Unable to determine from this study … need to include stimuli with longer durations


• Yes … needs further investigation with modified stim set


• Yes … needs further investigation with modified stim set


32

Future DirectionsLarger NUse pre-test to confirm level of APNecessary to increase durations of natural piano tones to ensure higher level of accuracyEstablish baseline for RT by using “press” commandRethink distracter

Intent to “erase” may have served to confirm tonality; quarter-tone or altered tuning system

Contact Info

Dr. Scott D. LipscombAssociate Professor

Institute for Music ResearchThe University of Texas at San

AntonioNorthwestern University (Fall 2001)

[email protected]://imr.utsa.edu/lipscomb/


34

Identify Initial Attack


35

Identify Initial Attack(Zoom 1)


36

Identify Initial Attack(Zoom 3)


37

Identify Initial Attack Return

Documents

Tonal Perception Thresholds and Pitch Identification by Absolute Pitch Possessors Dr. Scott D. Lipscomb 1 Dr. Janina Fyk 2 1 The University of Texas at