Literature DB >> 11325129

Gap detection for similar and dissimilar gap markers.

J H Grose1, J W Hall, E Buss, D Hatch.   

Abstract

Detection thresholds for temporal gaps between markers of dissimilar frequency are usually elevated with respect to thresholds for gaps between markers of similar frequency. Because gaps between markers of dissimilar frequency represent both a spectrally based perceptual discontinuity as well as a temporal discontinuity, it is not clear what factors underlie the threshold elevation. This study sought to examine the effects of perceptual dissimilarities on gap detection. The first experiment measured gap detection for configurations of narrow-band gap markers comprised of pure tones, frequency-modulated tones, and amplitude-modulated tones. The results showed that gap thresholds for frequency-disparate pure-tone markers were elevated with respect to isofrequency tonal markers, but that perceptual discontinuities between markers restricted to the same frequency region did not uniformly elevate threshold. The second experiment measured gap detection for configurations of markers where the leading and trailing markers could differ along the dimensions of bandwidth, duration, and pitch. The results showed that, in most cases, gap detection deteriorated when the bandwidth of the two markers differed, even when the spectral content of the narrower-band marker was completely subsumed by the spectral content of the wider-band marker. This finding suggests that gap detection is sensitive to spectral dissimilarity between markers in addition to spectral discontinuity. The effects of marker duration depended on the marker bandwidth. Pitch differences across spectrally similar markers had no effect.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11325129     DOI: 10.1121/1.1354983

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


  6 in total

1.  Cortical evoked response to gaps in noise: within-channel and across-channel conditions.

Authors:  Jennifer J Lister; Nathan D Maxfield; Gabriel J Pitt
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Gap duration discrimination for frequency-asymmetric gap markers: psychophysical and electrophysiological findings.

Authors:  John H Grose; Joseph W Hall; Emily Buss
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Stimulus change detection in phasic auditory units in the frog midbrain: frequency and ear specific adaptation.

Authors:  Abhilash Ponnath; Kim L Hoke; Hamilton E Farris
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 1.836

4.  Auditory temporal resolution in adaptive tasks. Gap detection investigation.

Authors:  Abdulsalam A Alhaidary; Kishore Tanniru; Adel F Aljadaan; Lamya M Alabdulkarim
Journal:  Saudi Med J       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 1.484

5.  Auditory steady state responses elicited by silent gaps embedded within a broadband noise.

Authors:  Seiichi Kadowaki; Takashi Morimoto; Hidehiko Okamoto
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 3.264

6.  Within- and across-frequency temporal processing and speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Chelsea M Blankenship; Jareen Meinzen-Derr; Fawen Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-13       Impact factor: 3.752

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.