Role of Pitch Memory in Pitch Matching and Pitch Discrimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Aug 2005Role of Pitch Memory in Pitch Matching and Pitch Discrimination Robert E. Moore, Casie Keaton and Christopher Watts Robert E. Moore Google Scholar More articles by this author , Casie Keaton Google Scholar More articles by this author and Christopher Watts Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.10102005.4 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In This study investigated the role of memory for pitch in pitch-matching ability and pitch-discrimination ability. Deutsch (1975) has proposed that pitch memory is a function of a specialized memory system. Participants performed three experimental tasks: pitch matching, pitch discrimination, and pitch discrimination with memory interference. In the pitch-matching task the participant heard a target tone (piano note) and attempted to vocally match the pitch of the target tone by producing “ah” for eight seconds. For the pitch-discrimination task, participants heard one of five reference tones that were followed by a target tone with a short silent period between the two tones. The frequencies of the reference tones ranged from 110 Hz to 220 Hz. For each reference tone, the target tone was either equal in frequency or differed from the target by +/- 75 cents. For each presentation, the participant indicated whether the reference tone was the same or different in pitch with respect to the target tone. The stimuli for the pitch discrimination with memory interference task were the same as for the pitch discrimination task except that four brief interference tones were placed in the silent period between the reference and target tones. The task for the participants in the pitch discrimination with memory interference task was to indicate if the pitch of the first tone and last tone was the same or different. There was a significant difference between pitch-discrimination ability with and without memory interference. This provides evidence that degrading pitch memory by interference has a significant effect on pitch-discrimination ability. Further, there was a significant correlation between pitch-matching ability and pitch-discrimination ability. Individuals who were good pitch discriminators tended to be good pitch matchers (and vice versa). This was in agreement with Watts et al. (2005). The correlation between the pitch matching and pitch discrimination with memory interference was not significant. When there was interference with memory, pitch discrimination ability declined, and there was no longer a significant relationship between pitch discrimination and pitch matching. It appears that one factor in one’s ability to discriminate (and therefore match) pitch is pitch memory. Previous research has indicated that individuals judged to have good singing voices are also good pitch matchers and pitch discriminators (Watts et al., 2005). Pitch memory may also be an important aspect of natural vocal talent. References Deutsch D. (1975). Auditory memory.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 87–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Watts C., Moore R., McCaughren K., & Carr M. (2005, in press). The relationship between vocal pitch matching skills and pitch discrimination skills in untrained accurate and inaccurate singers.Journal of Voice. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Author Notes Robert E. Moore, is assistant professor in the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology at the University of South Alabama in Mobile. Contact him at [email protected]. Casie Keaton, is an audiologist in Savannah, GA. She received her master’s degree from the University of South Alabama in 2004. Contact her at [email protected]. Christopher Watts, is associate professor in the Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, VA. Contact him at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 10Issue 10August 2005 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Aug 1, 2005 Metrics Downloaded 222 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2005 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".