Top

Gepubliceerd in:

20-05-2021 | Original Article

Effects of intention in the imitation of sung and spoken pitch

Auteurs: Peter Q. Pfordresher, James T. Mantell, Tim A. Pruitt

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2022

Abstract

Pitch content is an important component of song and speech. Previous studies have shown a pronounced advantage for imitation of sung pitch over spoken pitch. However, it is not clear to what extent matching of pitch in production depends on one’s intention to imitate pitch. We measured the effects of intention to imitate on matching of produced pitch in both vocal domains. Participants imitated pitch content in speech and song stimuli intentionally (“imitate the pitch”) and incidentally (“repeat the words”). Our results suggest that the song advantage exists independently of whether participants explicitly intend to imitate pitch. This result supports the notion that the song advantage reflects pitch salience in the stimulus. On the other hand, participants were more effective at suppressing the imitation of pitch for song than for speech. This second result suggests that it is easier to dissociate phonetic content from pitch in the context of song than in speech. Analyses of individual differences showed that intention to imitate pitch had larger effects for individuals who tended to match pitch overall in production, independent of intentions. Taken together, the results help to illuminate the psychological processes underlying intentional and automatic vocal imitation processes.

vorige artikel Group membership does not modulate automatic imitation

volgende artikel The effect of binaural beat stimulation on sustained attention

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

We did not design our study to compare individuals of different language backgrounds, but we ultimately compared the imitative performances of tonal language talkers to non-tonal language talkers. However, our statistical analyses did not reveal any significant differences (possibly because these analyses were underpowered). The effect sizes associated with language were very small (η²_p ≤ .01).

The stimuli are available online at https://osf.io/d3j5b/

Specifically, the total duration of each speech item was increased by 30% of the difference between that item and its paired song, whereas the total duration of each song item was decreased by 70% of this difference. Pitch was unaffected by the temporal manipulations.

Results of trials with masking noise are available in supplementary materials.

A similar pattern of results was found if the suppression effect was defined using differences across Blocks 1 and 3.

Similar results were found when the suppression effect was defined by the difference between Blocks 1 and 3.

As pointed out by a reviewer, this effect could also be related to the overall better performance of song imitation relative to the null distribution. Although this explanation is plausible for the analysis of pitch deviation scores (Fig. 3) it is less likely for pitch correlation scores, given that speech imitation well exceeded the null distribution in every condition for that measure.

Albouy, P., Benjamin, L., Morillon, B., & Zatorre, R. J. (2020). Distinct sensitivity to spectrotemporal modulation supports brain asymmetry for speech and melody. Science, 367, 1043–1047. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz3468CrossRefPubMed

Aubanel, V., & Nguyen, N. (2020). Speaking to a common tune: Between-speaker convergence in voice fundamental frequency in a joint speech production task. PLoS ONE, 15(5), e0232209. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232209CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Babel, M. (2012). Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.09.001CrossRef

Berkowska, M., & Dalla Bella, S. (2009). Acquired and congenital disorders of sung performance: A review. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 5, 69–83. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10053-008-0068-2CrossRefPubMed

Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2014). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.x. http://www.praat.org/

Falk, S., Rathcke, T., & Dalla Bella, S. (2014). When speech sounds like music. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1491–1506. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036858CrossRefPubMed

Garnier, M., Lamalle, L., & Sato, M. (2013). Neural correlates of phonetic convergence and speech imitation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00600CrossRef

Huron, D. (2006). Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Hutchins, S., & Peretz, I. (2011). Perception and action in singing. Progress in Brain Research, 191, 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53752-2.00010-2CrossRefPubMed

Jacoby, N., Undurraga, E. A., McPherson, M. J., Valdés, J., Ossandón, T., & McDermott, J. H. (2019). Universal and non-universal features of musical pitch perception revealed by singing. Current Biology, 29, 3229-3243.e3212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.08.020CrossRefPubMed

Kuhl, P. K., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1996). Infant vocalizations in response to speech: Vocal imitation and developmental change. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100(4), 2425–2438. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.417951CrossRef

Ladd, D. (2008). Intonational phonology (Cambridge studies in linguistics). (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Liu, F., Jiang, C., Pfordresher, P. Q., Mantell, J. T., Xu, Y., Yang, Y., & Stewart, L. (2013). Individuals with congenital amusia imitate pitches more accurately in singing than in speaking: Implications for music and language processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1783–1798. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0506-1CrossRef

Mercado, E., III., Mantell, J. T., & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2014). Imitating sounds: A cognitive approach to understanding vocal imitation. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 9, 1–57. https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2014.90002CrossRef

Mantell, J. T., & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2013). Vocal imitation of song and speech. Cognition, 127, 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.12.008CrossRefPubMed

Morrill, T. H., McAuley, J. D., Dilley, L. C., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2015). Individual differences in the perception of melodic contours and pitch-accent timing in speech: Support for domain-generality of pitch processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 730–736. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000081CrossRef

Norman-Haignere, S., Kanwisher, N. G., & McDermott, J. H. (2015). Distinct cortical pathways for music and speech revealed by hypothesis-free voxel decomposition. Neuron, 88, 1281–1296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.11.035CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pardo, J. S. (2006). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(4), 2382–2393. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2178720CrossRef

Pardo, J. S., Jay, I. C., & Krauss, R. M. (2010). Conversational role influences speech imitation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 2254–2264. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.8.2254CrossRef

Patel, A. D. (2008). Music, language, and the brain. Oxford University Press.

Patel, A. D. (2011). Why would musical training benefit the neural encoding of speech? The OPERA hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00142CrossRef

Patel, A. D. (2014). Can nonlinguistic musical training change the way the brain processes speech? The expanded OPERA hypothesis. Hearing Research, 308, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2013.08.011CrossRefPubMed

Peretz, I. (2009). Music, language and modularity framed in action. Psychologica Belgica, 49, 157–175. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-49-2-3-157CrossRef

Peretz, I., & Coltheart, M. (2003). Modularity of music processing. Nature Neuroscience, 6(7), 688–691. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1083CrossRefPubMed

Peretz, I., Vuvan, D., Lagrois, M. É., & Armony, J. L. (2015). Neural overlap in processing music and speech. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 370, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0090CrossRef

Pfordresher, P. Q., & Brown, S. (2007). Poor-pitch singing in the absence of “tone deafness.” Music Perception, 25(2), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2007.25.2.95CrossRef

Pfordresher, P. Q., Demorest, S. M., Dalla Bella, S., Hutchins, S., Loui, P., Rutkowski, J., & Welch, G. F. (2015). Theoretical perspectives on singing accuracy: An introduction to the special issue on singing accuracy (Part 1). Music Perception, 32, 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2015.32.3.227CrossRef

Pfordresher, P. Q., Halpern, A. R., & Greenspon, E. B. (2015). A mechanism for sensorimotor translation in singing: The Multi-Modal Imagery Association (MMIA) Model. Music Perception, 32, 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2015.32.3.242CrossRef

Pfordresher, P. Q., & Larrouy-Maestri, P. (2015). On drawing a line through the spectrogram: How do we understand deficits of vocal pitch imitation? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00271CrossRef

Pfordresher, P. Q., & Mantell, J. T. (2014). Singing with yourself: Evidence for an inverse modeling account of poor-pitch singing. Cognitive Psychology, 70, 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.12.005CrossRefPubMed

Reigado, J., & Rodrigues, H. (2018). Vocalizations produced in the second year of life in response to speaking and singing. Psychology of Music, 46, 626–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617719335CrossRef

Stegemöller, E. L., Skoe, E., Nicol, T., Warrier, C. M., & Kraus, N. (2008). Music training and vocal production of speech and song. Music Perception, 25(5), 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1525/MP.2008.25.5.419CrossRef

Tierney, A. T., Patel, A. D., & Breen, M. (2018). Acoustic foundations of the speech-to-song illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 888–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000455CrossRef

Tillmann, B. (2012). Music and language perception: Expectations, structural integration, and cognitive sequencing. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01209.xCrossRef

Wise, K. (2009). Understanding "tone deafness": A multi-componential analysis of perception, cognition, singing and self-perceptions in adults reporting musical difficulties. (Ph.D. thesis), Keele University, Keele, UK.

Wise, K. (2015). Defining and explaining singing difficulties in adults. The Oxford Handbook of Singing. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199660773.013.38CrossRef

Wisniewski, M. G., Mantell, J. T., & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2013). Transfer effects in the vocal imitation of speech and song. Psychomusicology: Music Mind, and Brain, 23, 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033299CrossRef

Zatorre, R. J., & Baum, S. R. (2012). Musical melody and speech intonation: Singing a different tune? PLoS Biology, 10, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001372CrossRef

Zatorre, R., & Gandour, J. T. (2008). Neural specializations for speech and pitch: Moving beyond the dichotomies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363, 1087–1104CrossRef

Zatorre, R. J., Belin, P., & Penhune, V. B. (2002). Structure and function of auditory cortex: Music and speech. T Rends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01816-7

Zetterholm, E. (2002). A case study of successful voice imitation. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 27, 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/140154302760409301CrossRef

Titel: Effects of intention in the imitation of sung and spoken pitch
Auteurs: Peter Q. Pfordresher
James T. Mantell
Tim A. Pruitt
Publicatiedatum: 20-05-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01527-0

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2022

Anticipating the magnitude of response outcomes can induce a potentiation effect for manipulable objects

In your eyes: vision of the body alters touch perception in women with eating disorder symptoms

In Colore Veritas? Color effects on the speed and accuracy of true/false responses

Here’s looking at you: eye gaze and collaborative recall

Implementation of the diffusion model on dot-probe task performance in children with behavioral inhibition

Examining the effect of Libet clock stimulus parameters on temporal binding