Recherche

Recherche simple

Recherche avancée

Panier électronique

Votre panier ne contient aucune notice

Connexion à la base

Identification

(Identifiez-vous pour accéder aux fonctions de mise à jour. Utilisez votre login-password de courrier électronique)

Entrepôt OAI-PMH

Soumettre une requête

	Consulter la notice détaillée
	Version complète en ligne
	Version complète en ligne accessible uniquement depuis l'Ircam
	Ajouter la notice au panier
	Retirer la notice du panier

English version

(full translation not yet available)

Liste complète des articles

Consultation des notices

Vue détaillée

Vue Refer

Vue Labintel

Vue BibTeX

%0 Journal Article
%A De Cheveigné, Alain
%A McAdams, Stephen
%A Laroche, Jean
%A Rosenberg, Muriel
%T Identification of Concurrent Harmonic and Inharmonic Vowels : a Test of the Theory of Harmonic Cancellation and Enhancement
%D 1995
%B JASA: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
%V 7
%N 97
%P 3736-3748
%F DeCheveigne95b
%K concurrent vowels
%K fundamental frequency
%K harmonic vowel
%X The improvement of identification accuracy of concurrent vowels with differences in fundamental frequency ([DELTA]F0) is usually attributed to mecanisms that exploit harmonic structure. To decide whether identification is aided primarily by the harmonic structure of the target ("harmonic enhancement") or that of the ground ("harmonic cancellation"), pairs of synthetic vowels, each of which was either harmonic or inharmonic, were presented to listeners for identification. Responses for each vowel were scored according to the vowel's harmonicity, the harmonicity of the vowel that accompanied it, and [DELTA]F0. For a given target, identification was better by about 3% for a harmonic ground unless the target was also harmonic with the same F0. This supports the cancellation hypothesis. Identification was worse for harmonic than for inharmonic targets by 3-8%. This does not support the enhancement hypothesis. When both vowels were harmonic, identification was better by about 6% when the F0s differed by 1/2 semitone. However, when at least one vowel was inharmonic, [DELTA]F0 had no significant effect. Identification of constituents of pairs was generally not the same when the target was harmonic and the ground inharmonic or vice-versa. Results are interpreted in terms of harmonic enhancement and harmonic cancellation, and alternative explanations such as phase effects are considered.
%1 1
%2 3
%U http://articles.ircam.fr/textes/DeCheveigne95b