Lower pitch is larger, yet falling pitches shrink: Interaction of pitch change and size change in speeded discrimination

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 61, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 273-284

  Eitan, Zohar ^a   Schupak, Asi ^b   Gotler, Alex ^c   Marks, Lawrence E ^a,d,e  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^c OPEN UNIVERSITY OF ISRAEL   (Israel)

^d JOHN B PIERCE LABORATORY   (United States)

^e YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditory pitch; Cross modal correspondence; Speeded discrimination

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PITCH; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CROSS-MODAL CORRESPONDENCE; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; ORIENTATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; SPEEDED DISCRIMINATION; YOUNG ADULT;

AUDITORY PITCH; CROSS-MODAL CORRESPONDENCE; SPEEDED DISCRIMINATION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PITCH PERCEPTION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84910148903     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: 21905142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000246     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abrams, R. A., & Christ, S. E. (2003). Motion onset captures attention. Psychological Science, 14, 427-432.
2. Ben-Artzi, E., & Marks, L. E. (1995). Congruence effects in classifying auditory stimuli: A review and a model. In B. Scharf & C. A. Possamaï (Eds.), Fechner Day '95, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics (pp. 145-150). Cassis, France: International Society for Psychophysics.
3. Ben-Artzi, E., & Marks, L. E. (1995). Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1151-1162.
4. Boenke, L. T., Ohl, F. W., Nikolaev, A. R., Lachmann, T., & Van Leeuwen, C. (2009). Different time courses of Stroop and Garner effects in perception - An event-related potentials study. NeuroImage, 45, 1272-1288.
5. Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Kerzel, D. (2005). Is direction position? Position- and direction-based correspondence effects in tasks with moving stimuli. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58a, 467-506.
6. Eitan, Z. (2013). How pitch and loudness shape musical space and motion: New findings and persisting questions. In A. Cohen, R. Kendall, S. Lipscomb, & S. L. Tan (Eds.), The Psychology of Music in Multimedia (pp. 161-187). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7. Eitan, Z. (in press). Which way is more? Pitch, parametric scales, and the intricacies of cross-domain magnitude relationships. In L. Bernstein & A. Rozin (Eds.), Festschrift for Eugene Narmour. New York, NY: Pendragon.
8. Eitanm, Z., & Granot, R. Y. (2006). How music moves: Musical parameters and images of motion. Music Perception, 23, 221-247.
9. Eitan, Z., Schupak, A., & Marks, L. E. (2008). Louder is higher: Cross-modal interaction of loudness change and vertical motion in speeded classification. In K. Miyazaki, Y. Hiraga, M. Adachi, Y. Nakajima, & M. Tsuzaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Music Perception & Cognition, (ICMPC10). Adelaide, Australia: Causal Productions.
10. Eitan, Z., & Marks, L. E. (2012, June). Garner's paradigm and audiovisual correspondence in dynamic stimuli: Pitch and vertical direction. Paper presented at the International Multisensory Forum 2012 (IMRF 2012), Oxford, UK. Abstract published in Seeing and Perceiving, (2012), 25, 70-71.
11. Evans, K., & Treisman, A. (2010). Natural cross-modal mappings between visual and auditory features. Journal of Vision, 10, 1-12.
12. Freyd, J. J., & Finke, R. A. (1984). Representational momentum. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 126-132.
13. Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2006). Multisensory synesthetic interactions in the speeded classification of visual size. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1191-1203.
14. Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
15. Kelly, M. H., & Freyd, J. J. (1987). Explorations of representational momentum. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 369-401.
16. Kim, K., & Iwamiya, S. (2008). Formal congruence between TELOP patterns and sound effects. Music Perception, 25, 429-448.
17. Kitagawa, N., & Ichihara, S. (2002). Hearing visual motion in depth. Nature, 416, 172-174.
18. Maeda, F., Kanai, R., & Shimojo, S. (2004). Changing pitch induced visual motion illusion. Current Biology, 14, R990-R991.
19. Marks, L. E. (2000). Synesthesia. In E. A. Cardena, S. J. Lynn, & S. C. Krippner (Eds.), Varieties of anomalous experience: Phenomenological and scientific foundations (pp. 121-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
20. Marks, L. E. (2004). Cross-modal interactions in speeded classification. In G. Calvert, C. Spence, & B. E. Stein (Eds.), Handbook of Multisensory Processes (pp. 85-106). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Marks, L. E., Hammeal, R. J., & Bornstein, M. H. (1987). Perceiving similarity and comprehending metaphor. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 52, (No. 215).
22. Martino, G., & Marks, L. E. (2000). Cross-modal interaction between vision and touch: The role of synesthetic correspondence. Perception, 29, 745-754.
23. Melara, R. D., & Marks, L. E. (1990). Processes underlying dimensional interactions: Correspondences between linguistic and nonlinguistic dimensions. Memory & Cognition, 18, 477-495.
24. Melara, R. D., Marks, L. E., & Potts, B. C. (1993). Earlyholistic processing or dimensional similarity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1114-1120.
25. Melara, R. D., & O'Brien, T. P. (1987). Interaction between synesthetically corresponding dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 323-336.
26. Mondloch, C., & Maurer, D. (2004). Do small white balls squeak? Pitch-object correspondences in young children. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 133-136.
27. Morton, E. S. (1977). On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some bird and mammal sounds. American Naturalist, 111, 855-869.
28. Neuhoff, J. G. (1998). Perceptual bias for rising tones. Nature, 395, 123-124.
29. Neuhoff, J. G., & McBeath, M. K. (1996). The Doppler illusion: The influence of dynamic intensity change on perceived pitch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 970-985.
30. Ohala, J. (1994). The frequency code underlies the soundsymbolic use of voice pitch. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 325-347). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31. Patching, G. R., & Quinlan, P. T. (2002). Garner and congruency effects in the speeded classification of bimodal signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 755-775.
32. Pomerantz, J. R. (1983). Global and local precedence: Selective attention in form and motion perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 516-540.
33. Pomerantz, J. R., & Garner, W. R. (1973). Stimulus configuration in selective attention tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 565-569.
34. Pomerantz, J. R., Pristach, E. A., & Carson, C. E. (1989). Attention and object perception. In B. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.), Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 53-89). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Puts, D., Gaulin, S., & Verdolini, K. (2006). Dominance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 283-296.
36. Scherer, K. R. (2003). Vocal communication of emotion: A review of research paradigms. Speech Communication, 40, 227-256.
37. Sekuler, A. B., & Sekuler, R. (1999). Collisions between moving visual targets: What controls alternative ways of seeing an ambiguous display? Perception, 28, 415-432.
38. Sekuler, R., Sekuler, A. B., & Lau, R. (1997). Sound alters visual motion perception. Nature, 385, 308.
39. Shimojo, S., & Shams, L. (2001). Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: Plasticity and interactions. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 505-509.
40. Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 971-995.
41. Suzuki, Y. (2003). Precise and full-range determination of twodimensional equal loudness contours. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
42. Van Leeuwen, C., & Barker, L. (1995). Stroop can occur without Garner interference: Strategic and mandatory influences in multidimensional stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 379-392.
43. Walker, B. N., & Ehrenstein, A. (2000). Pitch and pitch change interact in auditory displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 15-30.
44. Walker, P., & Smith, S. (1984). Stroop interference based on the synaesthetic qualities of auditory pitch. Perception, 13, 75-81.
45. Walker, L., Walker, P., & Francis, B. (2012). A common scheme for cross-sensory correspondences across stimulus domains. Perception, 41, 1186-92.
46. Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrices of time, space and quality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483-488.