Different Effects of Temporal and Spectral Regularities on Auditory Stream Segregation
Abstract
Background and Aim: The fact that recognizing sound regularities plays a crucial role in segregating auditory streams has recently garnered significant interest. This study aimed to investigate how temporal and spectral regularities incorporated into the background auditory stream affect auditory stream segregation.
Methods: Twenty-five healthy young adults performed an indirect measure of the auditory streaming task (i.e. detecting rare-level targets). They were presented with two concurrent auditory streams involving foreground and background streams, and were asked to detect rare-level targets in the foreground stream during three experimental conditions (spectral, temporal, or random regularities).
Results: Temporal and spectral regularities of the background auditory stream significantly increased the hit rate compared to random regularities. This effect of regular cues on target detection and possibly stream segregation was significantly greater under temporal regularity conditions than under spectral regularity conditions.
Conclusion: The findings suggest that incorporating temporal or spectral regularities into the background auditory stream can facilitate target detection and possibly stream segregation. This perceptual regularity benefit is greater for temporal regularities than for spectral regularities. These findings may provide primary evidence for the distinct facilitating effects of various theoretical frameworks on sound feature regularities and auditory streaming.
2. Alain C, Arnott SR. Selectively attending to auditory objects. Front Biosci. 2000;5:D202-12. [DOI:10.2741/Alain]
3. Chakrabarty D, Elhilali M. A Gestalt inference model for auditory scene segregation. PLoS Comput Biol. 2019;15(1):e1006711. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006711]
4. Snyder JS, Gregg MK, Weintraub DM. Attention, awareness, and the perception of auditory scenes. Front Psychol. 2012;3:15. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00015]
5. Deike S, Denham SL, Sussman E. Probing auditory scene analysis. Front Neurosci. 2014;8:293. [DOI:10.3389/fnins.2014.00293]
6. Paredes-Gallardo A, Innes-Brown H, Madsen SM, Dau T, Marozeau J. Auditory stream segregation and selective attention for cochlear implant listeners: Evidence from behavioral measures and event-related potentials. Front Neurosci. 2018;12:581. [DOI:10.3389/fnins.2018.00581]
7. Gutschalk A, Micheyl Ch, Melcher JR, Rupp A, Scherg M, Oxenham AJ. Neuromagnetic correlates of streaming in human auditory cortex. J Neurosci. 2005;25(22):5382-8. [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0347-05.2005]
8. Xiang J, Simon J, Elhilali M. Competing streams at the cocktail party: Exploring the mechanisms of attention and temporal integration. J Neurosci.2010;30(36):12084-93. [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0827-10.2010]
9. Moore BC, Gockel H. Factors influencing sequential stream segregation. Acta Acustica United with Acust. 2002;88(3):320-33.
10. Szalárdy O, Bőhm TM, Bendixen A, Winkler I. Event-related potential correlates of sound organization: Early sensory and late cognitive effects. Biol Psychol. 2013;93(1):97-104. [DOI:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.01.015]
11. Denham SL, Gyimesi K. Perceptual bistability in auditory streaming: How much do stimulus features matter? Learn Percept. 2013;5(Supplement 2):73-100. [DOI:10.1556/LP.5.2013.Suppl2.6]
12. Denham SL, Gyimesi K, Stefanics G, Winkler I. Stability of perceptual organisation in auditory streaming. In: LopezPoveda E, Palmer A, Meddis R, editors. The neurophysiological bases of auditory perception. New York: Springer; 2010. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4419-5686-6_44]
13. Winkler I, Takegata R, Sussman E. Event-related brain potentials reveal multiple stages in the perceptual organization of sound. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005;25(1):291-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.06.005]
14. Bendixen A. Predictability effects in auditory scene analysis: A review. Front Neurosci. 2014;8:60. [DOI:10.3389/fnins.2014.00060]
15. Bendixen A, Denham SL, Winkler I. Feature predictabilityflexibly supports auditory stream segregation or integration. Acta Acust United Acust. 2014;100(5):888-99. [DOI:10.3813/AAA.918768]
16. Bendixen A, Bőhm TM, Szalárdy O, Mill R, Denham SL, Winkler I. Different roles of similarity and predictability in auditory stream segregation. Learn Percept. 2013;5(Supplement 2):37-54. [DOI:10.1556/LP.5.2013.Suppl2.4]
17. Bendixen A, Denham SL, Gyimesi K, Winkler I. Regular patterns stabilize auditory streams. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(6):3658-66. [DOI:10.1121/1.3500695]
18. Rimmele J, Schröger E, Bendixen A. Age-related changes in the use of regular patterns for auditory scene analysis. Hear Res. 2012;289(1-2):98-107. [DOI:10.1016/j.heares.2012.04.006]
19. Andreou LV, Kashino M, Chait M. The role of temporal regularity in auditory segregation. Hear Res. 2011;280(1-2):228-35. [DOI:10.1016/j.heares.2011.06.001]
20. Soltanparast S, Toufan R, Talebian S, Pourbakht A. Regularity of background auditory scene and selective attention: A brain oscillatory study. Neurosci Lett. 2022;772:136465. [DOI:10.1016/j.neulet.2022.136465]
21. Sohoglu E, Chait M. Detecting and representing predictable structure during auditory scene analysis. Elife. 2016;5:e19113. [DOI:10.7554/eLife.19113]
22. Barascud N, Pearce MT, Griffiths TD, Friston KJ, Chait M. Brain responses in humans reveal ideal observer-like sensitivity to complex acoustic patterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(5):E616-25. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1508523113]
23. Schwartze M, Farrugia N, Kotz SA. Dissociation of formal and temporal predictability in early auditory evoked potentials. Neuropsychologia. 2013;51(2):320-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.09.037]
24. Hughes G, Desantis A, Waszak F. Mechanisms of intentional binding and sensory attenuation: The role of temporal prediction, temporal control, identity prediction, and motor prediction. Psychol Bull. 2013;139(1):133-51. [DOI:10.1037/a0028566]
25. Sperduti M, Tallon-Baudry C, Hugueville L, Pouthas V. Time is more than a sensory feature: Attending to duration triggers specific anticipatory activity. Cogn Neurosci. 2011;2(1):11-8. [DOI:10.1080/17588928.2010.513433]
26. Shalgi S, Deouell LY. Direct evidence for differential roles of temporal and frontal components of auditory change detection. Neuropsychologia. 2007;45(8):1878-88. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.11.023]
27. Opitz B, Rinne T, Mecklinger A, von Cramon DY, Schröger E. Differential contribution of frontal and temporal cortices to auditory change detection: fMRI and ERP results. Neuroimage. 2002;15(1):167-74. [DOI:10.1006/nimg.2001.0970]
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 35 No 3 (2026) | |
| Section | Research Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Auditory scene analysis stream segregation temporal regularity spectral regularity regularity encoding | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
