Segregation of complex acoustic scenes based on temporal coherence

  1. Sundeep Teki  Is a corresponding author
  2. Maria Chait
  3. Sukhbinder Kumar
  4. Shihab Shamma
  5. Timothy D Griffiths
  1. University College London, United Kingdom
  2. Newcastle University, United Kingdom
  3. University of Maryland, United States
  4. Ecole Normale Supérieure, France

Peer review process

This article was accepted for publication as part of eLife's original publishing model.

History

  1. Version of Record published
  2. Accepted
  3. Received

Decision letter

  1. Dora Angelaki
    Reviewing Editor; Baylor College of Medicine, United States

eLife posts the editorial decision letter and author response on a selection of the published articles (subject to the approval of the authors). An edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the substantive concerns or comments; minor concerns are not usually shown. Reviewers have the opportunity to discuss the decision before the letter is sent (see review process). Similarly, the author response typically shows only responses to the major concerns raised by the reviewers.

Thank you for sending your work entitled “Segregation of complex acoustic scenes based on temporal coherence” for consideration at eLife. Your article has been favorably evaluated by a Senior editor and 3 reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and one of whom, Mitchell Steinschneider, wants to reveal his identity.

The Reviewing editor and the other reviewers discussed their comments before we reached this decision, and the Reviewing editor has assembled the following comments to help you prepare a revised submission.

This is a well-written psychoacoustical study demonstrating that subjects are able to “hear out” a sequence of tones embedded in a complex acoustic environment of randomly presented tones. In contrast to other studies of this kind, there are no protective spectral regions where the background tones are omitted. The authors demonstrate that after initial training, most subjects are able to segregate the foreground sound pattern (one sound source) from the background sound source. Studies were appropriately performed with adequate controls. Indeed, it is remarkable that segregation of the foreground tone sequence still occurs despite introduction of interleaved bursts of white noise between the foreground tones. The duration of the white noise could extend up to 500 ms. These findings are clearly beyond the segregation capacities of core auditory cortex and the authors rightfully suggest non-classical auditory cortical processing stations as being the most likely generators of this percept. Further, the authors concisely provide modeling data and evidence that the temporal coherence model is the most appropriate model for explaining how this foreground/background segregation develops.

While the psychoacoustic results are interesting, the reviewers were disappointed by the integration between data and modeling.

1) First, the motivation for each modification of stimulus parameters should be explained more clearly. What would their model predict for the manipulation?

2) Second, it is unclear why the model simulations are not shown for all experimental manipulations, but only for number of tones and frequency components. It would be nice to see what the model predicts for the ramped SFG.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00699.008

Author response

1) First, the motivation for each modification of stimulus parameters should be explained more clearly. What would their model predict for the manipulation?

We agree with this comment and we have restructured the manuscript to better integrate the psychophysics and the modeling, and to provide a clear motivation for the simulation parameters for each experiment. See the Results section for a better description of the modeling, starting “The temporal coherence model is based on the idea that a perceptual “stream” emerges when a group of (frequency) channels are coherently activated against the backdrop of other uncorrelated channels (Shamma et al, 2010).”

2) Second, it is unclear why the model simulations are not shown for all experimental manipulations, but only for number of tones and frequency components. It would be nice to see what the model predicts for the ramped SFG.

In addition to the modeling of the first (“basic SFG”) experiment (Figure 3), we have now performed and included simulations for the remaining experiments (new Figure 3–figure supplement 1) demonstrating results qualitatively similar to those in Figure 3.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00699.009

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Sundeep Teki
  2. Maria Chait
  3. Sukhbinder Kumar
  4. Shihab Shamma
  5. Timothy D Griffiths
(2013)
Segregation of complex acoustic scenes based on temporal coherence
eLife 2:e00699.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00699

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00699