Relative pitch perception is more limited than commonly assumed

Evidence

In this study we investigated some of the potential sources of difficulty in detecting a pattern with a deviant pitch interval amongst transposed repetitions of a standard pattern, a task that is assumed to depend on relative pitch perception. Our results are consistent with a number of previous studies, e.g. (McDermott and Oxenham 2008 ), showing that relative pitch perception may be more limited than is commonly assumed. Performance is best when the standard phrase is repeated exactly with no transpositions (block 1), but falls substantially when transpositions are introduced (block 1 versus the average of blocks 3–7). Without transpositions, the task can be performed by direct comparisons between pitches, rather than using the interval relationships between successive pitches. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5263

Our results are consistent with a number of previous studies, e.g. (McDermott and Oxenham 2008 ), showing that relative pitch perception may be more limited than is commonly assumed. Performance is best when the standard phrase is repeated exactly with no transpositions (block 1), but falls substantially when transpositions are introduced (block 1 versus the average of blocks 3-7). — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5327

In support of the assumed generality of relative pitch perception, it has been shown that violations of transposed pitch patterns elicit discriminative brain responses in neonates (Stefanics et al. 2009 ) and young infants (Tew et al. 2009 ). So it is surprising that relative pitch perception can be rather poor (e.g. see (Foster and Zatorre 2010 ; McDermott et al. 2010 )), especially if contour violations and tonal melodies are excluded (Dowling 1986 ). McDermott et al. ( 2010 ), commenting on the poor pitch interval discrimination threshold they found, suggested that the importance of pitch as an expressive musical feature may rest more on an ability to detect pitch differences between tones, rather than an ability to recognise complex patterns of pitch intervals. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5267

An early, tall, isolated peak in the autocorrelation function will determine a perceived pitch, as the inverse of the time of the peak. Clearly, given some wiggly autocorrelation function, notions of early, tall, and isolated are qualitative at best. However, this is just as it should be. Pitch is itself qualitative—its sensation can be weak or strong, there can be more than one pitch present, and attention can be focused on each pitch separately. (Just as we can hear out partials, we can also hear out separate notes—separate collections of partials—even though this ability may require contextual cues.) — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 2076

Categorization

• QUESTION: What exactly limits relative pitch processing — memory, representation coherence, or comparison demands? Worth chasing the McIntosh/Barascud thread.
• XREF: Connects to the premise that melodic contour and tonality, not exact intervals, carry most pitch-pattern recognition — a mechanism relevant to my hearing research interest.
• DEEPTHINKING: Contrast between neonate neural sensitivity to transposed-pattern violations and behaviorally poor interval discrimination in adults is a genuinely puzzling dissociation worth sitting with.
• DEFINE: Establishes the qualitative, attention-dependent nature of pitch sensation rather than a single measurable value.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5263; Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5327; Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5267 (+1 more)