Pitch-Matching Accuracy in TrainUntrained Individuals: The ImpaInterference and Noise

Julie M. Estis, Ashli Dean-Claytor, Robert E. Moore, and T

e onracyS) an). Fue diffn Uere dcurate vonterfitchh-md nomem

(UT).2

ing pittones,8

tone abre10,1

In aindividof pitcmajorsion, amore tnotes ssition

y thatogni-alone

pitchoughd fory andationsstandctionrtain.clude

pitch matching, particularly for trained and professionalh-matching skillsTS vs UT).a pitch-matchingdelays on pitch-

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Julie M. Estis, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, Depart-singers.13 Much like pitch discrimination, pitcare also known to vary across populations (eg,Estis et al14 investigated pitch memory in

task, specifically exploring the role of time

ment of Speech Pathology and Audiology, College of Allied Health Professions, HAHN1119, 307 N. University Blvd., Mobile, AL 36688-0002. E-mail: jestis@usouthal.eduJournal of Voice, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 173-1800892-1997/$36.00 2011 The Voice Foundationdoi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.10.010accurate pitch discrimination skills, normal auditory function-ing, and good control of the vocal mechanism.11 Auditory feed-back has also been shown to play an important part in accurate

Accepted for publication October 23, 2009.From the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, College of Allied Health

Professions, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama.d pitch-matching tasks than most untrained individuals4 Research suggests reliance on working memory dur-ch discrimination tasks.57 Adding time delays betweenpresenting tonal interference between the reference

nd comparison tone,6,9 and using tones of differing tim-1 negatively affect pitch discrimination accuracy.ddition to discriminating between two individual pitches,uals also determine differences between combinationshes. Hubbard12 investigated the ability to discriminatetriad chords in different positions (ie, tonic, first inver-nd others). A chord is the simultaneous sounding ofhan two notes at a time. A triad consists of three specificounded simultaneously. It is considered to be in root po-when all of the intervals between the notes are in thirds,

sition, or inverted, the participants could tell if the chordsthe same, or different, harmonically. These results implthe ability to discriminate among the triads is based on ctive processes rather than on perception of harmonicsor on previous musical training.Most research investigating pitch processing and

memory has focused on pitch discrimination tasks. Althfindings from pitch discrimination tasks may be impliepitch-matching abilities, it is necessary to systematicalldirectly study pitch-matching abilities in avariety of populand with varied types of stimuli and interference to underthe relationship between pitch processing and vocal produof pitch. Thus,many aspects of pitchmatching remain unceThe known prerequisites for accurate pitch matching incians and singers perform more accurately on pitch discrimina-tion an

same root note. Hence, whether or not the chord was in root po-wereSummary: The effects of musical interference and noiswas explored as a factor influencing pitch-matching accudiscrimination was examined. Twenty trained singers (Tin six conditions (immediate, four types of chords, noisethe frequency of the target tone, and converted to semitonpleted. TS showed significantly better pitch matching thawere highly variable. Therefore, untrained participants wtrained inaccurate. Comparison of TS with untrained acgroups and across conditions. Compared with immediawas significantly reduced, givenmusical chord and noise ichord. A direct relationship between pitch matching and pditions, TS were consistently more accurate than UT. Pitcconsisted of chords that did not contain the target tone anKey Words: Pitch matchingPitch discriminationPitch

INTRODUCTIONSinging is a complex process, using the respiratory, phonatory,resonatory, articulatory, and auditory systems to create melodi-ous vocal tones. In the general population, there is a significantvariation in singing ability. Individuals may be classified as ac-curate singers or inaccurate singers. To sing accurately, individ-uals must first be able to accurately hear, differentiate, store,and then vocally reproduce pitches. Inaccurate singers, ormonotones, may have difficulty with these abilities.1 Thus,pitch discrimination and pitch-matching tasks may be usefulin understanding factors that differentiate accurate singersfrom those who are unable to sing accurately. Trained musi-ed Singers andct of Musical

homas L. Rowell, Mobile, Alabama

pitch-matching accuracy were examined. Vocal training, and the relationship between pitch matching and pitchd 20 untrained individuals (UT) vocally matched tonesndamental frequencies were calculated, compared witherence scores. A pitch discrimination task was also com-T across all conditions. Individual performances for UTivided into two groups: 10 untrained accurate and 10 un-te individuals revealed significant differences betweencal matching of target tones, pitch-matching accuracyerence unless the target tonewas presented in the musicaldiscrimination was revealed. Across pitch-matching con-atching accuracy diminished when auditory interferenceise.oryMusical interferenceSingers.

with the bottom note being the tonic note, or root, of the majoror minor scale on which it is based (eg, a Cmajor chord consistsof the notes middle C, E, and G). Conversely, it is said to be aninversion when the bottom note of the chord is either the third orfifth of the triad (eg, the first inversion of a C major chord con-sists of the notes E [third], G [fifth], and C [tonic]). The stimulustriads were simple major triads, so that people could participatein the study, regardless of musical training. All participantswere considered untrained. Participants were asked to deter-mine whether or not two sequentially presented target chordswere the same or different. Results of the study indicated thatlisteners could accurately discriminate chords based on the

Journal of Voice, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2011174matching ability. Results of the study indicated decreased pitch-matching accuracy with increasing time intervals of silence (5,15, and 25 seconds) between the presentation of target tones andvocal pitch-matching productions. Also, this study indicatedthat some individuals with no formal vocal training performedas well as vocally trained individuals, whereas a subset of UTperformed poorly on all pitch-matching tasks.It remains to be determined which types of interference (eg,

time, vocal tones, pure tones, chords, and others) are most det-rimental to pitch-matching performance. In addition, there hasbeen evidence to suggest a relationship between abilities inpitch discrimination and pitch matching; however, research inthis area has resulted inmixed findings based on the populationsstudied and the tasks used to measure pitch discrimination per-formance.3,6,11 Therefore, the purpose of the present investiga-tion was to determine the effects of different types of auditoryinterference between stimuli and vocal match productions onpitch matching in males and females as well as to further inves-tigate the relationship between pitch discrimination and pitch-matching abilities. This study also investigated the relationshipbetween vocal training and pitch-matching abilities with vari-ous types of interference, by including two groups of partici-pants: trained singers (TS) and UT. The different types ofinterference were musical chords of varying relation to the tar-get tones and pink noise. If tonal information and speech infor-mation are held within specialized mechanisms in workingmemory, then chords, particularly ones that are less related tothe target, should be detrimental to pitch memory and ulti-mately pitch matching. The following research questionswere addressed:

1. Are there differences in pitch-matching accuracy givenvarious types of interferences (musical chords with targetin root position, musical chords with the root a perfectfourth away from the target, musical chords with theroot a major second away from the target, unrelated mi-nor second chords an octave away, and pink noise) amongTS and UT?

2. Is there a relationship between the ability to discriminatebetween pitches and the ability to match pitches?

METHODS

ParticipantsThe participants were 20 females and 20 males between theages of 19 and 32 years (mean [M] 23.05, standard deviation[SD] 3.08). All participants were native speakers of English;had no significant history of voice pathology or voice treatment;demonstrated adequate vocal function as evidenced by jitter(frequency perturbation), shimmer (amplitude perturbation),and noise-to-harmonic ratio (amount of noise in the signal)within one SD of the mean, as calculated byMulti-DimensionalVoice Profile-Advanced (MDVP-A) voicing analysis softwareversion 2.7.0 and compared with MDVP-A database meansand SDs; and passed an audiometric hearing screening. Partic-ipants were divided into two groups based on vocal training.Twenty participants were TS. Participants in the TS group

had a minimum of 3 years of individual voice training and atleast 1 year of collegiate musical theory. The remaining 20 par-ticipants were UTwho had no individual training from a profes-sional vocal instructor.

StimuliFor all pitch-matching tasks, stimuli were complex tones withthe following fundamental frequencies: 262 (C4), 294 (D4),330 (E4), 348 (F4), and 392 Hz (G4) for female participants;and 131 (C3), 147 (D3), 164 (E3), 175 (F3), and 196 Hz (G3)for male participants. These frequencies were chosen becausethey are within the normal singing range of females and malesin the third and fourth octaves of the musical scale. Tones andchords were generated using a Yamaha Portable Grand key-board (model YPG-625; Buena Park, CA) on a piano setting.The stimuli were then recorded and saved onto a computer asWAV files. Stimuli were edited with Adobe Audition (version1.5) such that each tone had a duration of 1.5 seconds andwas gated on and off with 10-millisecond linear ramps.Stimuli for the five interference conditions were created for

each target note (Table 1). For the five interference conditions,there was a 1.5-second silence interval between the target toneand the interference (chords or noise), which also had a durationof 1.5 seconds. There were four chord interference conditions.In the first condition (chord 1), the target tone was the root noteof the interfering chord, which was a major triad (eg, for the C3and C4 targets, the interfering chord was C E G). In the secondcondition (chord 2), the root of the interference chord was a per-fect fourth above the target (eg, for the D3 and D4 targets, theinterfering chord was G B D). In the third condition (chord3), the interfering chord had a root note that was a major secondabove the target (eg, for the E3 and E4 targets, the interferingchord was F] A] C]); and in the fourth condition (chord 4),the interfering chord had a root note that was an interval ofan octave plus a minor second, or ninth, above the target tone(eg, for the F3 and F4 targets, the interfering chord was be G[

B[ D[). It should be noted that the target note in its root positionwas sounded in chord 1, at the interval of a perfect fifth in chord2, and was not sounded in chords 3 and 4. The progression of thefour triadic conditions systematically increased intervallic dis-tance or harmonic association from the target pitch. In additionto four types of musical interference, an aperiodic noise condi-tion was created. Specifically, pink noise with a spectrum sim-ilar to that of speech was generated with Adobe Audition soundediting software (version 1.5).For the pitch discrimination task, Adobe Audition sound edit-

ing software (version 1.5) was used to create complex tonalstimuli. Five complex tones were created for the male and fe-male participants based on the normal signing range for malesand females. The frequencies for the male participants were104, 107, 110, 113, and 116 Hz. The frequency interval be-tween complex tones was 50 cents. Each tone had a durationof 1.5 seconds and was gated on and off with 10-millisecondlinear amplitude ramps. Each complex tone was paired witheach of the other complex tones and with an identical complextone for a total of 25 pairs of tones. This resulted in tone pairsdiffering by 0, 50, 100, 150, or 200 cents. Each tone in a pair

was separated by a 0.5-second silent interval. Five complex

Task

Ta

Julie M. Estis, et al Musical Interference and Noise Impact Pitch Matching 175tones were created for the female participants in the same man-ner at 200, 206, 212, 218, and 224 Hz. Tonal stimuli were pre-

TABLE 1.Complex Tones and Interfering Chords for Pitch-Matching

Males

Target NoteCoordinatingFrequency (Hz) Chords

C3 131 1: C E G2: F A C3: D F] A4: D[ F A[

D3 147 1: D F] A2: G B D3: E G] B4: E[ G B[

E3 164 1: E G] B2: A C] E3: F] A] C]4: F A C

F3 175 1: F A C2: B[ D F3: G B D4: G[ B[ D[

G3 196 1: G B D2: C E G3: A C] E4: A[ C E[sented via a Fostex 7301B3E (Tokyo, Japan) amplified speakerat 75 dB sound pressure level (SPL) for all experimental tasks.Volume settings were measured before the onset of the study toensure that all output was consistently at 75 dB SPL. In addi-tion, sound level measurements were repeated after the studyto ensure that output level remained consistent.

ProceduresAll procedures were conducted during a 1-hour session in a dou-ble-walled, sound-attenuated booth. Preexperimental taskswere completed first. Participants read and signed a Statementof Informed Consent. A bilateral pure tone hearing screeningwas conducted using a Grason-Stadler, Inc (GSI-17; Milford,NH) portable audiometer, calibrated in compliance with Amer-ican National Standards Institute15 guidelines. Pure tones at500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz were presented at 25 dB HLvia TDH 50 (Telephonics, Farmingdale, NY) supra-aural head-phones. Participants were instructed to raise their hand whena tone was heard. Failure to respond at any frequency at eitherear precluded participation in the study.Voice analysis was completed using the MDVP-A to ensure

that there were no current voice problems that may have ad-versely affected performance on pitch-matching tasks or accu-racy of acoustic measurement of pitch-matching responses.A head-mounted microphone was placed at approximately34 cm from the left corner of each participants mouth forrecording responses. Participants sustained the /a/ sound at acomfortable loudness level for 4 seconds. The subsequent vocalresponses were routed through the head-mounted microphone,then digitized at a sampling rate of 48.8 kHz, and recorded

s

Females

rget NoteCoordinatingFrequency (Hz) Chords

C4 262 Chord 1: C E GChord 2: F A CChord 3: D F] AChord 4: D[ F A[

D4 294 Chord 1: D F] AChord 2: G B DChord 3: E G] BChord 4: E[ G B[

E4 330 Chord 1: E G] BChord 2: A C] EChord 3: F] A] C]Chord 4: F A C

F4 348 Chord 1: F A CChord 2: B[ D FChord 3: G B DChord 4: G[ B[D[

G4 392 Chord 1: G B DChord 2: C E GChord 3: A C] EChord 4: A[ C E[and timed by the MDVP-A software. Responses were recordedand analyzed using the Computerized Speech Lab (CSL) andMDVP-A software to determine if jitter, shimmer, and noise-to-harmonic ratio values were within 1 SD of the mean basedon the MDVP-A database.After preexperimental procedures, all participants completed

an immediate pitch-matching task, a pitch matching with inter-ference task, and a pitch discrimination task, in that order. Forall pitch-matching tasks, stimulus tones were presented one ata time via a Fostex 7301B3E amplified speaker. Each tonewas presented twice randomly. During the immediate pitch-matching task, participants listened to each stimulus tone andthen attempted to vocally match the pitch of each target toneby sustaining /a/ for 4 seconds immediately after presentationof the stimulus. Responses were timed and analyzed using theMDVP-A software. Participants pitch-matching responseswere recorded via the head-mounted microphone, digitized ata 48.8 kHz sampling rate by the CSL and saved to the com-puters hard drive for MDVP-A analysis.For the pitch matching with interference tasks, participants

listened to each stimulus tone followed by a musical chord(chords 14) or pink noise and attempted to vocally matchthe targets by producing an /a/ sound immediately after the in-terference. The stimuli were randomized by ECos/Win stimuluspresentation software (AVAAZ Innovations, Inc., Ontario, Can-ada). Each target note (C, D, E, F, and G) was presented twicefor each condition, which resulted in a total of 50 vocalresponses.

FIGURE 2. Individual mean semitone difference scores in chord 1

FIGURE 1. Individual mean semitone difference scores in the im-mediate pitch matching condition.

Journal of Voice, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2011176Individual performances on the pitch-matching tasks for eachcondition are shown in Figures 16. Mean semitone differencescores and SDs were calculated across all pitch-matching con-ditions for each group: TS and UT (Table 2). Examination of in-dividual performances, as well as group means and SDs, forpitch-matching accuracy revealed consistently accurate perfor-mance across TS, whereas UT presented varying abilities. Thisvariability within the UT groups is evidenced by large SDs. Infact, 10 out of 20 of the UT showed an average semitone differ-ence from the target tones of more than 1 semitone in the imme-diate pitch-matching condition. Some UT, however, displayedpitch-matching abilities similar to the TS.To determine if training significantly impacted pitch-

matching performance, given musical chord and noise interfer-ence, an omnibus, 2 (group)3 6 (pitch-matching conditions)repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with vocalFor the pitch discrimination paradigm, participants wereseated at a desk in front of a computer monitor and a mouse.Each participant was seated approximately 1 m away froma Fostex 7301B3E amplified speaker, from which pairs of com-plex stimulus tones were presented one at a time. Participantswere asked to discriminate between the presented stimuli. Par-ticipants received instructions to judge whether the tones pre-sented were the same in pitch or if they were different inpitch by selecting either same or different on the computerscreen with the mouse. Participants completed two experimen-tal blocks for a total of 50 pitch discrimination trials. For eachblock, 25 pitch discrimination stimulus pairs were presentedrandomly by the ECos/Win presentation software. Participantresponses and progress were monitored by the researcher viaa networked computer from outside the room.

RESULTSFor the pitch-masking tasks, the average semitone differencebetween the two attempted vocal matches and each targettone was used to measure the dependent variable, pitch-match-ing accuracy. The fundamental frequency (F0) of the targetcomplex tone and average F0 of the pitch-matching attemptswere used to calculate difference in semitones with the follow-ing formula:

sds 12log10f2 log10f1

log102

where sds is semitone difference scores, f1 is F0 of the targettone, and f2 is the absolute value of the average F0 of trials 1and 2.16 The average semitone difference was calculated inthis manner for the immediate and five interference pitch-matching conditions for each target note. Pitch discriminationaccuracy, a second dependent variable, was measured by calcu-lating percent correct scores on the pitch discrimination task foreach participant (eg, [no. correct judgments/no. total judgmentsin trial]3 100% correct pitch discrimination judgments).

Descriptive and statistical analyses of pitch-matching accuracytraining as the between-subjects factor and pitch-matchingcondition as the within-subjects factor was performed. Resultsshowed a significant main effect for group (TS vs UT)F(1,38) 17.008, P < 0.001, h2p 0.309with TS showingsignificantly better pitch-matching accuracy than UT. Therewas no significant main effect of pitch-matching conditionand no significant interaction.Examination of individual performances as well as group

means and SDs revealed high variability in the UT, with someindividuals presenting very poor accuracy across all pitch-matching conditions. To further explore differences acrosspitch-matching conditions, the UT was divided based onpitch-matching accuracy in the immediate pitch-matching con-dition. Two groups of UT were created: UT-accurate (UT-A)(10 participants with mean semitone difference scores lessthan 1 semitone from the target tone; M 0.2377,SD 0.2211) and UT-inaccurate (UT-I) (10 participants withmean difference scores more than 1 semitone from the targettone; M 3.1299, SD 1.2433). This division of participantsbased on performance led to three groups with significantlycondition.

FIGURE 3. Individual mean semitone difference scores in chord 2condition.

FIGURE 5. Individual mean semitone difference scores in chord 4condition.

Julie M. Estis, et al Musical Interference and Noise Impact Pitch Matching 177different pitch-matching accuracy in the immediate pitch-matching conditionF(2,37) 84.892, P < 0.001, h2p 0.821.See Figure 7 for group means and SDs for semitone differencescores across pitch-matching conditions. Because the UT-Igroup performed poorly on pitch-matching tasks regardless ofinterference, examination of the impact of interference on pitchmatching was compared between the TS group and the UT-Agroup. Therefore, descriptive statistics and a 2 (group)3 6(condition) repeated-measures ANOVA with group as the be-tween-subjects factor and pitch-matching condition as thewithin-subjects factor were conducted. Mauchlys test of sphe-ricity was significant, indicating that sphericity could not be as-sumed (w 0.032, P < 0.001); therefore, Huynh-Feldtcorrections were used. A significant main effect for pitch-matching condition was shownF(2.608,73.036) 4.255,P 0.011, h2p 0.132. The accuracy of the TS diminishedwith several conditions; however, their performance was moreconsistent and accurate than that of the UT-A group. Analysis

of between-subject effects yielded a significant main effect

FIGURE 4. Individual mean semitone difference scores in chord 3condition.for groupF(1,28) 5.651, P 0.016, h2p 0.189. The inter-action was nonsignificant. Post hoc pairwise comparisons re-vealed that chord 2 (P 0.007), chord 3 (P < 0.001), chord 4(P < 0.001), and noise (P 0.007) interference conditionswere significantly different from performance in the immediatecondition. Also, there is a significant difference in performancebetween the chord 3 and chord 4 conditions and between thechord 3 and the noise conditions.

Descriptive and statistical analyses of pitchdiscriminationTo examine the relationship between pitch discrimination andpitch-matching skills, which the fourth research question inthe current study raised, pitch discrimination accuracy (mea-sured in percent correct scores) descriptive and statistical anal-yses were conducted. SDs were calculated for each group.Mean percent correct scores were calculated for each individual(Figure 8). Group means were higher for TS (M 94%,

SD 3.0504) than UT (M 82%, SD 1.1514).

FIGURE 6. Individual mean semitone difference scores in the noisecondition.

A 1 (pitch discrimination accuracy)3 2 (group) ANOVAwasconducted to determine if differences in pitch discriminationaccuracy existed among the four experimental groups. A sig-

have superior pitch-matching abilities when compared withUT, and that some untrained singers would possess abilitiessimilar to their trained counterparts. This was in accordance

TABLE 2.GroupM and SD of Semitone Difference Scores for TS and UT

Pitch-Matching Condition

Trained Singers Untrained Individuals

M SD M SD

Immediate 0.1246 0.0567 1.6838 1.7195Chord 1 0.1601 0.1283 2.0480 2.6246Chord 2 0.1645 0.1115 2.0450 2.0683Chord 3 0.2539 0.2340 2.1740 1.9357Chord 4 0.2830 0.1979 2.0694 1.9757Noise 0.1835 0.1324 2.0047 2.1132

Journal of Voice, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2011178nificant main effect was found for groupF(1,38) 32.565,P < 001, h2p 0.461. The post hoc pairwise comparisons indi-cated that the TS group performed significantly better on thepitch discrimination task than the UT group. A Pearson prod-uct-moment correlation revealed a significant correlation be-tween overall pitch discrimination scores and immediatepitch-matching accuracy (r575, P

between pitch discrimination and pitch matching. For the cur-rent study, it was proposed that TS would perform better in

the exact cognitive, perceptual, and physiological mechanismsinvolved in pitch matching. Future research exploring neuro-

Julie M. Estis, et al Musical Interference and Noise Impact Pitch Matching 179the pitch discrimination task than their untrained counterpartsbased on the findings of Amir et al,17 which showed enhancedauditory abilities of TS compared with those of UT. As ex-pected, between-group differences existed among participantsfor the pitch discrimination task. In accordance with findingsfrom similar studies, it was also hypothesized that pitch dis-crimination and pitch matching would be correlated given over-lapping systems involved in these tasks.11,1719 Results showeda strong relationship between pitch discrimination and pitchmatching. Overall, participants who displayed accurate pitchdiscrimination skills also showed accurate pitch discriminationskills and vice versa. It is important to note that 10 out of the 20UT in this investigation were considered inaccurate with aver-age mean semitone differences of at least 1 semitone awayfrom the target. Of those 10, two showed good pitch discrimi-nation skills but had extremely poor pitch-matching skills, asthey were each approximately 3 semitones off of the target inthe immediate pitch-matching conditions. Performance of theseoutliers is similar to that of the participants in an investigationby Bradshaw and McHenry,18 which examined pitch discrimi-nation and pitch-matching abilities in only inaccurate adults.There was no significant correlation between pitch discrimina-tion and pitchmatching. Despite the variability in pitch discrim-ination among thosewith poor pitch-matching abilities, a strongoverall relationship between pitch discrimination and pitchHowever, chords that did not contain the target tone (chord 3and chord 4 conditions) negatively impacted pitch-matching ac-curacy. As anticipated, results showed increasingly significantdifferences between the immediate condition and chord 2,chord 3, and chord 4 conditions. The chord 3 (musical chordswith the root a major second away from the target) and chord4 (unrelated chord a ninth above) conditions were found to bemost detrimental to the untrained accurate singers when com-pared with their scores in the immediate condition. Noise inter-ference also significantly reduced pitch-matching accuracy. Insummary, the current study reveals that TS have pitch-matchingskills superior to those of UT. However, some UT demonstratepitch-matching accuracy similar to TS. This indicates that, inaddition to musical exposure and learning, innate factors mayplay a role in pitch-matching abilities. The consistently accu-rate performance observed in TS suggests that vocal trainingfine-tunes the underlying mechanisms involved in pitch match-ing, thereby enhancing pitch-matching accuracy. Specifically,practice and training likely improve the efficiency of the vocalmechanism, allowing the TS to quickly and precisely configurethe vocal folds for production of a specific pitch. Additionally,musical training yields improved cognitive representations formusical notes, enhancing the efficiency of the perceptual andmemory resources for pitch.

Group differences in pitch discrimination accuracyThe second research question addressed the relationshipmatching remains.logical, auditory, and physiological correlates may explain thevariation in pitch matching among the general population andthe effects of vocal training on these underlying systems.Results of this study imply that individuals who demonstrate

poor pitch matching and poor pitch discrimination may requireadditional training. For example, vocal function exercises,20

which require patients to sustain sounds at various frequencies,are used by speech language pathologists to treat a variety ofvocal pathologies. Some patients may demonstrate difficultywith these tasks because of reduced pitch perception andpitch-matching abilities. These patients may require modifica-tions to the typical treatment protocol. Also, choral directorsand teachers of singing may consider incorporating similarpitch matching and pitch discrimination tasks into their audi-tioning process to screen UT. This would allow for determina-tion of those who show naturally strong pitch-matching andpitch discrimination abilities.

REFERENCES1. Watts C, Murphy J, Barnes-Burroughs K. Pitch matching accuracy of

trained singers, untrained subjects with talented singing voices, and un-

trained subjects with nontalented singing voices in conditions of varying

feedback. J Voice. 2003;17:185194.

2. Fujioka T, Trainor L, Ross B, Kakigi R, Pantev C. Musical training

enhances automatic encoding of melodic contour and interval structure.

J Cogn Neurosci. 2004;16:10101021.

3. Murry T, Zwirner P. Pitch matching ability of experienced and inexperi-

enced singers. J Voice. 1991;5:197202.

4. Schueller M, Bond Z, Fucci D, Gunderson F, Vaz P. Possible influence of

linguistic andmusical background on perceptual pitch-matching tasks: a pi-

lot study. Percept Mot Skills. 2004;99:421428.

5. Deutsch D. The deterioration of pitch information in memory [unpublished

doctoral dissertation]. San Diego, CA: University of California at San

Diego; 1970.

6. Moore R, Keaton C, Watts C. The role of pitch memory in pitch discrimi-

nation and pitch matching. J Voice. 2007;21:560567.

7. Pechmann T, Mohr G. Interference in memory for tonal pitch: implications

for a working-memory model. Mem Cogn. 1992;20:314320.

8. Harris J. The decline of pitch discrimination with time. J Exp Psychol.SUMMARYMusical training enhances pitch-matching accuracy. For TS,pitch-matching ability remains strong despite musical and noiseinterference. Pitch-matching accuracy varies considerablyamong UT. Those who show accurate pitch matching withouta musical background are more susceptible than TS to reducedpitch-matching accuracy when chords that do not contain thetarget tone and noise interference are presented. Those whoare unable to adequately match pitch show poor performancewith and without musical and noise interference. This studyalso supports previous research showing a strong relationshipbetween pitch discrimination and pitch-matching abilities.This study provides insight into the underlying processes in-

volved in pitch matching and pitch discrimination. Results sug-gest that pitch memory is enhanced by musical training,although some individuals without training appear to show nat-urally strong pitch memory skills. Questions remain regarding1952;43:9699.

9. Deutsch D. Tones and numbers: specificity of interference in short-term

memory. Science. 1970;168:16041605.

10. Erickson M, Perry S. Can listeners hear who is singing? A comparison

of three-note and six-note discrimination tasks. J Voice. 2003;17:353369.

11. Watts C, Moore R, McCaghren K. The relationship between vocal pitch-

matching skills and pitch discrimination skills in untrained accurate and in-

accurate singers. J Voice. 2005;19:534543.

12. Hubbard T. Listeners can discriminate among major chord positions. Per-

cept Mot Skills. 1998;87:891897.

13. Murbe D, Pabst F, Hofmann G, Sundberg J. Significance of auditory and

kinesthetic feedback to singers pitch control. J Voice. 2002;16:4451.

14. Estis J, Coblentz J, Moore R. Effects of increasing time delays on pitch-

matching accuracy in trained singers and untrained individuals. J Voice.

2009;23:439445.

15. American National Standards Institute. Specification for Audiometers.

ANSI S3.6-1996. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute;

1996.

16. Baken R, Orlikoff R. Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice. New

York, NY: Thomas Learning; 2000. 145213.

17. Amir O, Amir N, Kishon-Rabin L. The effect of superior auditory skills on

vocal accuracy. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113:11021108.

18. Bradshaw E,McHenryM. Pitch discrimination and pitch matching abilities

of adults who sing inaccurately. J Voice. 2005;19:431439.

19. Moore R, Estis J, Gordon-Hickey S,Watts C. Pitch discrimination and pitch

matching abilities with vocal and nonvocal stimuli. J Voice. 2008;22:

399407.

20. Stemple J, Glaze L, Klaben B. Clinical Voice Pathology: Theory and Man-

agement. San Diego, CA: Singular; 2000. 304310.

Journal of Voice, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2011180

Pitch-Matching Accuracy in Trained Singers and Untrained Individuals: The Impact of Musical Interference and NoiseIntroductionMethodsParticipantsStimuliProcedures

ResultsDescriptive and statistical analyses of pitch-matching accuracyDescriptive and statistical analyses of pitch discrimination

DiscussionGroup differences in pitch-matching accuracyGroup differences in pitch discrimination accuracy

SummaryReferences