Back

Context effects in pitch discrimination reflect response bias not sensory bias

Dirks, C. E.; Guest, D. R.; Oxenham, A.

2026-07-03 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.07.02.735981 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Context effects are ubiquitous across sensory systems and reflect a general encoding principle for both simple and complex stimuli. One simple context effect, contraction bias, manifests in two-interval perception tasks as a bias of the perceived magnitude of the first stimulus toward the center of the overall magnitude range. The underlying cause of contraction bias is unclear. One explanation is that a listeners magnitude estimate of the first stimulus is combined with a perceptual anchor, usually the mean stimulus magnitude, biasing it toward the anchor (sensory model). An alternative explanation is that a listeners response criterion shifts, based on the magnitude of the stimulus pair, relative to the mean magnitude of the stimuli range (decision model). Two pitch-discrimination experiments were performed to test these hypotheses in the auditory domain. The first was a forced-choice discrimination task, where listeners were asked to identify the higher or lower tone in a pair. The second was a same-different task where listeners indicated whether or not the two tones in a pair differed in frequency. Contraction bias was observed in the higher-lower discrimination task, even after extensive perceptual training with feedback. In contrast, no contraction bias was observed in the same-different task. Computational models of the sensory and decision hypotheses were fit to data from both experiments. The sensory model captured the pattern of results the higher-lower experiment but erroneously predicted a contraction bias in the same-different task. The decision model produced similar predictions to the sensory model in the higher-lower task but correctly predicted no contraction bias in the same-different task, and produced lower prediction errors and more stable parameter estimates in both paradigms. Overall, the results suggest that the underlying nature of the contraction bias may reflect decision, rather than sensory, biases based on the context.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.5%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 5%
9.6%
3
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 4%
9.6%
4
Trends in Hearing
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.7%
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 29%
5.4%
6
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Hearing Research
54 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.4%
8
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.8%
9
The Journal of Neuroscience
1025 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.0%
10
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
11
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
12
Cognition
47 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
13
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
135 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.3%
14
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 46%
1.7%
15
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.7%
16
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
17
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
Journal of Vision
110 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
19
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
20
Biological Psychology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
21
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 42%
0.8%
22
Neural Computation
39 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
23
npj Science of Learning
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%