In defense of the theory of indispensable attributes.

Neuhoff (in press) has criticized Kubovy’s (1981) Theory of Indispensable Attributes (TIA), which is the one of the building blocks of Kubovy and Van Valkenburg’s (2001) theory of auditory objecthood. Specifically, he claims that (1) “simple frequency separation does not ensure the formation of auditory objects” and that (2) “frequency variation is not a necessary condition for auditory figure-ground relationships”. Neuhoff is not the first to criticize TIA. Handel (1988) offered similar criticisms (to which Kubovy, 1988, replied), and we have received an abundance of personal communication, some of which brings up similar issues. For this reason, we are grateful to have the opportunity to clarify aspects of the theory which have been misunderstood and to correct some of our errors. We divide our response into two sections. In the first, we clarify our theory. Although Neuhoff’s critique is focused on a particular aspect of our theory (i.e. the role of frequency in auditory objecthood), in order to reject this portion of our theory he must also reject our ideas about the nature of grouping and objecthood. That is why we (1) summarize our theory of auditory objecthood, (2) specify the role of the TIA in our theory of auditory objecthood and state exactly what the TIA claims, and (3) discuss other implications of our theory. In the second section of our response, we consider Neuhoff’s claims and his counter-examples.