<p>I don't know if there is a name to this type of experiment, but this basically sounds like a test of recognition memory.</p>

<p>The features that subjects focus on would depend entirely on the task. If you ask them to match volume, they would pay attention to volume. If you ask them to detect a frequency match, they'll focus on pitch. If you run an experiment without specifying a feature, humans generally tend to weight the different features according to their reliability (signal-to-noise ratio). So if pitch is more informative in detecting a match, they would focus largely on pitch.</p>

<p>For example: <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026557704054" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026557704054</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-24T18:49:20.847Z
2017-10-24T18:49:20.847Z
Moss Murderer
<p>There are two categories of audio signal memory retrieval/recognition that appear to be being researched.</p>

<h1>Noise Identification</h1>

<p>In "<a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2016.00490/abstract" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Long Term Memory for Noise: Evidence of Robust Encoding of Very Short Temporal Acoustic Patterns</a>", the subject were asked to discriminate 1s cyclic noises (where the two halves are equivalent) or 1s random noises. Four weeks later, target cyclic noises that were shifted or chopped+shuffled were presented in an another discrimination task. The discrimination for intact cyclic noise was significantly better than for novel cyclic noise presented four weeks later.</p>

<p><img src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1918825/31911024-57bf2b1e-b80d-11e7-88d4-f842c83054b0.png" alt="noise_recog_results"></p>

<p>However, this doesn't address what aspects of audio signals people tend to focus on.</p>

<h1>Melody Identification</h1>

<p>From the abstract of "<a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Contributions-of-pitch-contour-tonality-rhythm-and-Prince/93e7a70a2a5c20d92d7c67c77a9fce08e0aa31eb" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Contributions of pitch contour, tonality, rhythm, and meter to melodic similarity</a>" (emphasis mine):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In this study, <strong>pitch contour (pattern of ups and downs)</strong> served as
  pitch surface information, and <strong>tonality (musical key)</strong> as pitch
  structure; in the temporal dimension, surface information was the
  ordinal duration ratios of <strong>adjacent notes (rhythm)</strong>, and <strong>meter (beat,</strong>
  <strong>or pulse)</strong> comprised the structure. Factorially manipulating the
  preservation or alteration of all of these forms of information in 17
  novel melodies (typifying Western music) enabled measuring their
  effect on perceived melodic similarity. In Experiment 1, 34
  participants (varied musical training) rated the perceived similarity
  of melody pairs transposed to new starting pitches. <strong>Rhythm was the</strong>
  <strong>largest contributor to perceived similarity, then contour, meter, and</strong>
  <strong>tonality</strong>. Experiment 2 used the same melodies but varied the tempo
  within a pair, and added a prefix of 3 chords, which oriented the
  listener to the starting pitch and tempo before the melody began. Now
  <strong>contour was the strongest influence on similarity ratings, followed by</strong>
  <strong>tonality, and then rhythm; meter was not significant</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-24T18:43:55.773Z
2017-10-24T18:43:55.773Z
Seanny123
<p>How do people match audio signals from memory? For example, consider the simplest case where there is a single channel sound being applied to one headphone. If the subject was previously presented a set of audio signals and then has to identify if the presented signal was present in the set, what features do humans tend to focus on? Is amplitude (volume), frequency (pitch) or something else entirely? Alternatively, a reference to what this type of experiment is called would be appreciated.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-24T15:17:05.023Z
I don't understand the question either. It would be good to explain the sort of task you are after. Especially the audio signal should be clarified. For example, there are specific pitch matching tasks (equal volume) that use sinusoids. If level-adjusted there is nothing but the tonal cue that's used, as it's the only relevant parameter present.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-24T18:51:17.597Z
@AliceD given my answer, how should I clarify this question?
Seanny123
<cognitive-psychology><memory>
Matching patterns in auditory signals
Seanny123
# Matching patterns in auditory signals

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-10-23)

How do people match audio signals from memory? For example, consider the simplest case where there is a single channel sound being applied to one headphone. If the subject was previously presented a set of audio signals and then has to identify if the presented signal was present in the set, what features do humans tend to focus on? Is amplitude (volume), frequency (pitch) or something else entirely? Alternatively, a reference to what this type of experiment is called would be appreciated.

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, memory

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I don't understand the question either. It would be good to explain the sort of task you are after. Especially the audio signal should be clarified. For example, there are specific pitch matching tasks (equal volume) that use sinusoids. If level-adjusted there is nothing but the tonal cue that's used, as it's the only relevant parameter present.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 given my answer, how should I clarify this question?  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-10-24. Score: 1

I don't know if there is a name to this type of experiment, but this basically sounds like a test of recognition memory.

The features that subjects focus on would depend entirely on the task. If you ask them to match volume, they would pay attention to volume. If you ask them to detect a frequency match, they'll focus on pitch. If you run an experiment without specifying a feature, humans generally tend to weight the different features according to their reliability (signal-to-noise ratio). So if pitch is more informative in detecting a match, they would focus largely on pitch.

For example: <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026557704054>


---

### Answer by username_0 on 2017-10-24. Score: 0

There are two categories of audio signal memory retrieval/recognition that appear to be being researched.

# Noise Identification

In "[Long Term Memory for Noise: Evidence of Robust Encoding of Very Short Temporal Acoustic Patterns](http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2016.00490/abstract)", the subject were asked to discriminate 1s cyclic noises (where the two halves are equivalent) or 1s random noises. Four weeks later, target cyclic noises that were shifted or chopped+shuffled were presented in an another discrimination task. The discrimination for intact cyclic noise was significantly better than for novel cyclic noise presented four weeks later.

![noise_recog_results](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1918825/31911024-57bf2b1e-b80d-11e7-88d4-f842c83054b0.png)

However, this doesn't address what aspects of audio signals people tend to focus on.

# Melody Identification

From the abstract of "[Contributions of pitch contour, tonality, rhythm, and meter to melodic similarity](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Contributions-of-pitch-contour-tonality-rhythm-and-Prince/93e7a70a2a5c20d92d7c67c77a9fce08e0aa31eb)" (emphasis mine):

> In this study, **pitch contour (pattern of ups and downs)** served as
> pitch surface information, and **tonality (musical key)** as pitch
> structure; in the temporal dimension, surface information was the
> ordinal duration ratios of **adjacent notes (rhythm)**, and **meter (beat,**
> **or pulse)** comprised the structure. Factorially manipulating the
> preservation or alteration of all of these forms of information in 17
> novel melodies (typifying Western music) enabled measuring their
> effect on perceived melodic similarity. In Experiment 1, 34
> participants (varied musical training) rated the perceived similarity
> of melody pairs transposed to new starting pitches. **Rhythm was the**
> **largest contributor to perceived similarity, then contour, meter, and**
> **tonality**. Experiment 2 used the same melodies but varied the tempo
> within a pair, and added a prefix of 3 chords, which oriented the
> listener to the starting pitch and tempo before the melody began. Now
> **contour was the strongest influence on similarity ratings, followed by**
> **tonality, and then rhythm; meter was not significant**.


---

