TABLE 6.
Summary of statistical analyses for experiment 2
| Experiment 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| ANOVA 2.1: Factors: Condition (Full Bandwidth Acoustic vs. Full Bandwidth Acoustic and 8-Channel Vocoded), Song Segment | ||||
|
| ||||
| Factor | df Num | df Denom | F | p |
| Factor 1: Condition | 1 | 8 | 34.864 | <0.001 |
| Factor 2: Song Segment | 1 | 8 | 6.599 | 0.033 |
| Interaction | 1 | 8 | 6.599 | 0.033 |
| ANOVA 2.2: Factors: Condition (8-Channel Vocoded Only vs. Anchor only), Song Segment | ||||
|
| ||||
| Factor | df Num | df Denom | F | p |
|
| ||||
| Factor 1: Condition | 1 | 8 | 14.977 | 0.005 |
| Factor 2: Song Segment | 1 | 8 | 15.587 | 0.004 |
| Interaction | 1 | 8 | 15.587 | 0.004 |
| ANOVA 2.3: Factors: Condition (Acoustic vs. Acoustic and 8-Channel Vocoded), Song Segment, Low-Frequency Cutoff | ||||
|
| ||||
| Factor | df Num | df Denom | F | p |
|
| ||||
| Factor 1: Condition | 1 | 8 | 31.933 | <0.001 |
| Factor 2: Song Segment | 1 | 8 | 0.812 | 0.394 |
| Factor 3: Low-Frequency Cutoff | 3 | 24 | 76.55 | <0.001 |
| Condition × Song Segment | 1 | 8 | 8.324 | 0.02 |
| Song Segment × Low-Frequency Cutoff | 3 | 24 | 21.693 | <0.001 |
| Condition × Low-Frequency Cutoff | 3 | 24 | 6.935 | 0.002 |
| Three-way interaction | 3 | 24 | 2.451 | 0.088 |
| ANOVA 2.4: Factors: Condition (Acoustic and Full Bandwidth Electric vs. Acoustic and High-Pass Electric), Song Segment, Low-Frequency Cutoff | ||||
|
| ||||
| Factor | df Num | df Denom | F | p |
|
| ||||
| Factor 1: Condition | 1 | 8 | 1.364 | 0.276 |
| Factor 2: Song Segment | 1 | 8 | 0.333 | 0.58 |
| Factor 3: Low-Frequency Cutoff | 2 | 16 | 12.657 | 0.001 |
| Condition × Song Segment | 1 | 8 | 0.614 | 0.456 |
| Song Segment × Low-Frequency Cutoff | 2 | 16 | 0.611 | 0.555 |
| Condition × Low Frequency Cutoff | 2 | 16 | 4.834 | 0.023 |
| Three-way interaction | 2 | 16 | 0.004 | 0.996 |
| Paired t Tests for “Ring of Fire” | ||||
|
| ||||
| Comparison | df | t | p | |
|
| ||||
| Vocoder only (2v) vs. 250 Hz low pass (4) | 8 | 2.986 | 0.017 | |
| Vocoder only (2v) vs. 500 Hz low pass (5) | 8 | 5.111 | <0.001 | |
| Vocoder only (2v) vs. 1000 Hz low pass (6) | 8 | 10.316 | <0.001 | |
| Vocoder only (2v) vs. full bandwidth (1) | 8 | 71.513 | <0.001 | |
| Paired t Tests for “Rhapsody in Blue” | ||||
|
| ||||
| Comparison | df | t | p | |
|
| ||||
| Vocoder only (2v) vs. 250 Hz low pass (4) | 8 | 4.537 | 0.002 | |
| Vocoder only (2v) vs. 500 Hz low pass (5) | 8 | 8.738 | <0.001 | |
| Vocoder only (2v) vs. 1000 Hz low pass (6) | 8 | 15.014 | <0.001 | |
| Vocoder Only (2v) vs. full bandwidth (1) | 8 | 342.115 | <0.001 | |
ANOVA, analysis of variance; df, degrees of freedom.