Literature DB >> 10491699

The role of the envelope in processing iterated rippled noise.

W A Yost1, R Patterson, S Sheft.   

Abstract

Iterated rippled noise (IRN) is generated by a cascade of delay and add (the gain after the delay is 1.0) or delay and subtract (the gain is -1.0) operations. The delay and add/subtract operations impart a spectral ripple and a temporal regularity to the noise. The waveform fine structure is different in these two conditions, but the envelope can be extremely similar. Four experiments were used to determine conditions in which the processing of IRN stimuli might be mediated by the waveform fine structure or by the envelope. In experiments 1 and 3 listeners discriminated among three stimuli in a single-interval task: IRN stimuli generated with the delay and add operations (g = 1.0), IRN stimuli generated using the delay and subtract operations (g = -1.0), and a flat-spectrum noise stimulus. In experiment 2 the listeners were presented two IRN stimuli that differed in delay (4 vs 6 ms) and a flat-spectrum noise stimulus that was not an IRN stimulus. In experiments 1 and 2 both the envelope and waveform fine structure contained the spectral ripple and temporal regularity. In experiment 3 only the envelope had this spectral and temporal structure. In all experiments discrimination was determined as a function of high-pass filtering the stimuli, and listeners could discriminate between the two IRN stimuli up to frequency regions as high as 4000-6000 Hz. Listeners could discriminate the IRN stimuli from the flat-spectrum noise stimulus at even higher frequencies (as high as 8000 Hz), but these discriminations did not appear to depend on the pitch of the IRN stimuli. A control experiment (fourth experiment) suggests that IRN discriminations in high-frequency regions are probably not due entirely to low-frequency nonlinear distortion products. The results of the paper imply that pitch processing of IRN stimuli is based on the waveform fine structure.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 10491699     DOI: 10.1121/1.423746

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  9 in total

1.  The neuronal representation of pitch in primate auditory cortex.

Authors:  Daniel Bendor; Xiaoqin Wang
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-08-25       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Relative influence of musical and linguistic experience on early cortical processing of pitch contours.

Authors:  Bharath Chandrasekaran; Ananthanarayan Krishnan; Jackson T Gandour
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2008-03-17       Impact factor: 2.381

3.  Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Anderson; Andrew J Oxenham; Peggy B Nelson; David A Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Perception of pure tones and iterated rippled noise for normal hearing and cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Richard T Penninger; Wade W Chien; Patpong Jiradejvong; Emily Boeke; Courtney L Carver; Charles J Limb
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2013-03

5.  The temporal representation of the delay of iterated rippled noise in the ventral cochlear nucleus of the guinea-pig.

Authors:  I M Winter; L Wiegrebe; R D Patterson
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 5.182

6.  Auditory stream segregation of iterated rippled noises by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Daniel E Shearer; Michelle R Molis; Keri O Bennett; Marjorie R Leek
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  High Ripple-Density Resolution for Discriminating Between Rippled and Nonrippled Signals: Effect of Temporal Processing or Combination Products?

Authors:  Dmitry I Nechaev; Olga N Milekhina; Marina S Tomozova; Alexander Y Supin
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

8.  Pitch and timbre interfere when both are parametrically varied.

Authors:  Valeria C Caruso; Evan Balaban
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  A Neuronal Network Model for Pitch Selectivity and Representation.

Authors:  Chengcheng Huang; John Rinzel
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 2.380

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.