# In defense of the theory of indispensable attributes **Opening (not a real abstract):** 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 **Authors:** [[David Van Valkenburg*, Michael Kubovy]]