Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36495710›Full record

ArticleCognition2023

Relative pitch representations and invariance to timbre.

Malinda J McPherson, Josh H McDermott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Dissociating the neural codes for multiple pitch perception in humans.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. The fundamental frequencies of our own voice.Royal Society open science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Malinda J McPhersonDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of America; Program in Speech and Hearing Biosciences and Technology, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America; McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of America. Electronic address: mjmcp@mit.edu.
Josh H McDermottDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of America; Program in Speech and Hearing Biosciences and Technology, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America; McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of America; Center for Brains Minds and Machines, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of America.

Funding

Auditory Scene Analysis with Complex SoundsR01DC014739 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI MCDERMOTT, JOSH H · 2016 to 2020
$1.9M
Individual and population differences in the representation of harmonic soundsF31DC018433 · NIDCD · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI MCPHERSON, MALINDA JEANETTE · 2019 to 2021
$67k
NIDCD NIH HHS F31 DC018433NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Information in speech and music is often conveyed through changes in fundamental frequency (f0), perceived by humans as "relative pitch". Relative pitch judgments are complicated by two facts. First, sounds can simultaneously vary in timbre due to filtering imposed by a vocal tract or instrument body. Second, relative pitch can be extracted in two ways: by measuring changes in constituent frequency components from one sound to another, or by estimating the f0 of each sound and comparing the estimates. We examined the effects of timbral differences on relative pitch judgments, and whether any invariance to timbre depends on whether judgments are based on constituent frequencies or their f0. Listeners performed up/down and interval discrimination tasks with pairs of spoken vowels, instrument notes, or synthetic tones, synthesized to be either harmonic or inharmonic. Inharmonic sounds lack a well-defined f0, such that relative pitch must be extracted from changes in individual frequencies. Pitch judgments were less accurate when vowels/instruments were different compared to when they were the same, and were biased by the associated timbre differences. However, this bias was similar for harmonic and inharmonic sounds, and was observed even in conditions where judgments of harmonic sounds were based on f0 representations. Relative pitch judgments are thus not invariant to timbre, even when timbral variation is naturalistic, and when such judgments are based on representations of f0.

Indexed as

MusicPitch PerceptionAcoustic StimulationHumansPitch DiscriminationInvarianceMusicPitch perceptionPsychoacousticsSpeechTimbre

Identifiers

PMID36495710
PMCPMC10016107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.