Evidence for auditory feature integration with spatially distributed items

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 62, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 1243-1257

  Hall, Michael D ^a   Pasture, Richard E ^b   Acker, Barbara E ^b   Huang, Wenyi ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HEARING; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AUDITORY PERCEPTION; CUES; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 0034240870     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03212126     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. ASHBY, F. G., PRINZMETAL, W., IVRY, R., & MADDOX, W. T. (1996). A formal theory of feature binding in object perception. Psychological Review, 103, 165-192.
2. BREGMAN, A. S. (1990). Auditors scene analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. BROADBENT, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon.
4. CIOCCA, V., & BREGMAN, A. S. (1989). The effects of auditory streaming on duplex perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 39-48.
5. COLLINS, S. C. (1985). Duplex perception with musical stimuli: A further investigation. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 172-177.
6. CUTTING, J. E. (1976). Auditory and linguistic processes in speech perception: Inferences from six fusions in dichotic listening. Psychological Review, 83, 114-140.
7. DARWIN, C. J., TURVEY, M. T., & CROWDER, R. G. (1972). An auditory analogue of the Sperling partial report procedure: Evidence for brief auditory storage. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 255-267.
8. DEHAENE, S. (1993). Temporal oscillations in human perception. Psychological Science, 4, 264-270.
9. DEUTSCH, D. (1974). An auditory illusion. Nature, 251, 307-309.
10. DEUTSCH, D. (1975). Two-channel listening to musical scales. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 57, 1156-1160.
11. DEUTSCH, D. (1982). Grouping mechanisms in music. In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The psychology of music (pp. 99-134). New York: Academic Press.
12. DUNCAN, J., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433-458.
13. FLETCHER, H. (1972). Speech and hearing in communication. New York: Krieger.
14. HALL, M. D., & PASTURE, R. E. (1992a). Effects of base complexity in musical duplex perception [Abstract]. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 2339.
15. HALL, M. D., & PASTORE, R. E. (1992b). Musical duplex perception: Perception of figurally good chords with subliminal distinguishing tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 752-762.
16. HANDEL, S. (1988a). No one analogy is sufficient: Rejoinder to Kubovy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 14, 321.
17. HANDEL, S. (1988b). Space is to time as vision is to audition: Seductive but misleading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 14, 315-317.
18. IVRY, R. B., & PRINZMETAL, W. (1991). Effect of feature similarity on illusory conjunctions. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 105-116.
19. KOLINSKY, R. (1992). Conjunction errors as a tool for the study of perceptual processes. In J. Algeria, D. Holender, J. Junca de Morais, & M. Radeau (Eds.), Analytic approaches to human cognition (pp. 133-149). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
20. KUBOVY, M. (1981). Concurrent-pitch segregation and the theory of indispensable attributes. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 55-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. KUBOVY, M. (1988). Should we resist the seductiveness of the space:time: :vision:audition analogy? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 14, 318-320.
22. MARR, D. (1982). Vision. New York: Freeman.
23. MATTINGLY, I. G., & LIBERMAN, A. M. (1988). Speech and other auditory modules (Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research No. SR-93/94). New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories.
24. MORAY, N. (1970). Attention. New York: Academic Press.
25. NAVON, D. (1990a). Does attention serve to integrate features? Psychological Review, 97, 453-459.
26. NAVON, D. (1990b). Treisman's search model does not require feature integration: Rejoinder to Treisman (1990). Psychological Review, 97, 464-465.
27. PASTURE, R. E., SCHMUCKLER, M. A., ROSENBLUM, L., & SZCZESIUL, R. (1983). Duplex perception with musical stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 469-474.
28. PITT, M. A. (1994). Perception of pitch and timbre by musically trained and untrained listeners. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 976-986.
29. PRINZMETAL, W., HENDERSON, D., & IVRY, R. B. (1995). Loosening the constraints on illusory conjunctions: Assessing the roles of exposure duration and attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1362-1375.
30. REPP, B. H. (1978a). Stimulus dominance and ear dominance in fused dichotic speech and nonspeech stimuli (Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research No. SR-55/56). New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories.
31. REPP, B. H. (1978b). Stimulus dominance in fused dichotic syllables (Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research No. SR-55/56). New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories.
32. THOMPSON, W. F. (1994). Sensitivity to combinations of musical parameters: Pitch with duration, and pitch pattern with durational pattern. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 363-374.
33. TREISMAN, A. (1969). Strategies and models of selective attention. Psychological Review, 76, 282-299.
34. TREISMAN, A. (1990). Variations on the theme of feature integration: Reply to Navon (1990). Psychological Review, 97, 460-463.
35. TREISMAN, A. (1992). Perceiving and re-perceiving objects. American Psychologist, 47, 862-875.
36. TREISMAN, A., & GELADE, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
37. TREISMAN, A., & GORMICAN, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15-48.
38. TREISMAN, A., KAHNEMAN, D., & BURKELL, J. (1983). Perceptual objects and the cost of filtering. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 527-532.
39. TREISMAN, A., & SCHMIDT, H. (1982). Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 107-141.
40. TREISMAN, A., & SOUTHER, J. (1986). Illusory words: The roles of attention and of top-down constraints in conjoining letters to form words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 12, 3-17.
41. WHALEN, D., & LIBERMAN, A. M. (1987). Speech perception takes precedence over nonspeech perception. Science, 237, 169-171.
42. WOLFE, J. M., CAVE, K. R., & FRANZEL, S. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 419-433.
43. WOODS, D. L., ALAIN, C., & OGAWA, K. H. (1998). Conjoining auditory and visual features during high-rate serial presentation: Processing and conjoining two features can be faster than processing one. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 239-249.
44. WOODS, D. L., ALHO, K., & ALGAZI, A. (1994). Stages of auditory feature conjunction: An event-related brain potential study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 81-94.