Literature DB >> 12141348

Effects of signal delay on auditory filter shapes derived from psychophysical tuning curves and notched-noise data obtained in simultaneous masking.

Sid P Bacon1, Jennifer L Repovsch-Duffey, Li Liu.   

Abstract

Psychophysical tuning curves (PTCs) measured in simultaneous masking usually sharpen as a short duration signal is moved from the onset to the temporal center of a longer duration masker. Filter shapes derived from notched-noise maskers have not consistently shown this effect. One possible explanation for this difference is that the signal level is fixed in the PTC paradigm, whereas the masker level is usually fixed in the notched-noise paradigm. In the present study, the signal level was fixed at 10 dB SL in both paradigms. The signal was 20 ms in duration, and presented at the onset or temporal center of the 400-ms masker. The masker was a pure tone presented in quiet (PTC) or in the presence of a pure-tone "restrictor" intended to limit off-frequency listening (PTCr), or it was a noise with a spectral notch placed symmetrically or asymmetrically about the 2-kHz signal frequency. Filter shapes were derived from the PTC, PTCr, and notched-noise data using the roex (p, w, t) model. The effects of signal delay and masking paradigm on filter bandwidth were analyzed with a two-factor repeated-measures ANOVA. There was a significant effect of signal delay (the filters sharpened with time) and masking paradigm (the filters derived from the notched-noise data were significantly wider than those derived from either of the PTC measurements, which did not differ from one another). Although the interaction between delay and paradigm was not significant, the filter derived from the notched-noise data sharpened more with time than did the other filters, and thus the bandwidth of the filters from the three paradigms were more similar at the longer delay than at the shorter delay. It is likely that the tuning-curve and notched-noise paradigms measure the same underlying filtering, but that various other factors contribute differentially to the derived filter shapes.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12141348     DOI: 10.1121/1.1485972

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


  6 in total

1.  Precursor effects on behavioral estimates of frequency selectivity and gain in forward masking.

Authors:  Skyler G Jennings; Elizabeth A Strickland; Michael G Heinz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Evaluating the effects of olivocochlear feedback on psychophysical measures of frequency selectivity.

Authors:  Skyler G Jennings; Elizabeth A Strickland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Overshoot measured physiologically and psychophysically in the same human ears.

Authors:  Kyle P Walsh; Edward G Pasanen; Dennis McFadden
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Time-efficient measures of auditory frequency selectivity.

Authors:  Karolina K Charaziak; Pamela Souza; Jonathan H Siegel
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 2.117

5.  Comparison of the roex and gammachirp filters as representations of the auditory filter.

Authors:  Masashi Unoki; Toshio Irino; Brian Glasberg; Brian C J Moore; Roy D Patterson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  The role of compression in the simultaneous masker phase effect.

Authors:  Hisaaki Tabuchi; Bernhard Laback; Thibaud Necciari; Piotr Majdak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.840

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.