Citation

Pfordresher PQ, Kulpa JD. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2011; 37(6): 1699.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1037/a0026004

PMID

22122159

Abstract

Reports an error in "The dynamics of disruption from altered auditory feedback: Further evidence for a dissociation of sequencing and timing" by Peter Q. Pfordresher and J. D. Kulpa (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2011[Jun], Vol 37[3], 949-967). In Figure 8 the y-axes for panels A, B, C, and D should read "Mean error rate" instead of "Mean IRI." In addition, in the caption for Figure 8 the sentence "Each data point represents the mean error rate across participants beginning at that serial position, ending at the next serial position" should read "Each data point represents the mean error rate across participants at that serial position." (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2011-07484-001.) Three experiments were designed to test whether perception and action are coordinated in a way that distinguishes sequencing from timing (Pfordresher, 2003). Each experiment incorporated a trial design in which altered auditory feedback (AAF) was presented for varying lengths of time and then withdrawn. Experiments 1 and 2 included AAF that resulted in action-effect asynchronies (delayed auditory feedback) during simple tapping (Experiment 1) and melody production (Experiment 2). Asynchronous AAF immediately slowed production; this effect then diminished rapidly after removal of AAF. By contrast, sequential alterations of feedback pitch during melody production (Experiment 3) had an effect that varied over successive presentations of AAF (by increasing error rates) that lasted after its withdrawal. The presence of auditory feedback after withdrawal of asynchronous AAF (Experiments 1 and 2) led to overcompensation of timing, whereas the presence of auditory feedback did not influence performance after withdrawal of AAF in Experiment 3. Based on these results, we suggest that asynchronous AAF perturbs the phase of an internal timekeeper, whereas alterations to feedback pitch over time degrade the internal representation of sequence structure. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).

Language: en