Literature DB >> 12186042

Temporal pitch mechanisms in acoustic and electric hearing.

Robert P Carlyon1, Astrid van Wieringen, Christopher J Long, John M Deeks, Jan Wouters.   

Abstract

Two experiments investigated pitch perception for stimuli where the place of excitation was held constant. Experiment 1 used pulse trains in which the interpulse interval alternated between 4 and 6 ms. In experiment 1a these "4-6" pulse trains were bandpass filtered between 3900 and 5300 Hz and presented acoustically against a noise background to normal listeners. The rate of an isochronous pulse train (in which all the interpulse intervals were equal) was adjusted so that its pitch matched that of the "4-6" stimulus. The pitch matches were distributed unimodally, had a mean of 5.7 ms, and never corresponded to either 4 or to 10 ms (the period of the stimulus). In experiment 1b the pulse trains were presented both acoustically to normal listeners and electrically to users of the LAURA cochlear implant, via a single channel of their device. A forced-choice procedure was used to measure psychometric functions, in which subjects judged whether the 4-6 stimulus was higher or lower in pitch than isochronous pulse trains having periods of 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 ms. For both groups of listeners, the point of subjective equality corresponded to a period of 5.6 to 5.7 ms. Experiment 1c confirmed that these psychometric functions were monotonic over the range 4-12 ms. In experiment 2, normal listeners adjusted the rate of an isochronous filtered pulse train to match the pitch of mixtures of pulse trains having rates of F1 and F2 Hz, passed through the same bandpass filter (3900-5400 Hz). The ratio F2/F1 was 1.29 and F1 was either 70, 92, 109, or 124 Hz. Matches were always close to F2 Hz. It is concluded that the results of both experiments are inconsistent with models of pitch perception which rely on higher-order intervals. Together with those of other published data on purely temporal pitch perception, the data are consistent with a model in which only first-order interpulse intervals contribute to pitch, and in which, over the range 0-12 ms, longer intervals receive higher weights than short intervals.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12186042     DOI: 10.1121/1.1488660

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


  19 in total

1.  Modulation frequency discrimination with modulated and unmodulated interference in normal hearing and in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Heather A Kreft; David A Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-04-30

2.  Temporal-pitch sensitivity in electric hearing with amplitude modulation and inserted pulses with short inter-pulse intervals.

Authors:  Martin J Lindenbeck; Bernhard Laback; Piotr Majdak; Sridhar Srinivasan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Stimulation Rate and Voice Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Damir Kovačić; Chris J James
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-08-02

4.  The burst gap is a peripheral temporal code for pitch perception that is shared across audition and touch.

Authors:  Deepak Sharma; Kevin K W Ng; Ingvars Birznieks; Richard M Vickery
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  Distortion products and their influence on representation of pitch-relevant information in the human brainstem for unresolved harmonic complex tones.

Authors:  Christopher J Smalt; Ananthanarayan Krishnan; Gavin M Bidelman; Saradha Ananthakrishnan; Jackson T Gandour
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Effects of center frequency and rate on the sensitivity to interaural delay in high-frequency click trains.

Authors:  Piotr Majdak; Bernhard Laback
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Behavioral and physiological correlates of temporal pitch perception in electric and acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Suresh Mahendran; John M Deeks; Christopher J Long; Patrick Axon; David Baguley; Stefan Bleeck; Ian M Winter
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Concurrent sound segregation in electric and acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Christopher J Long; John M Deeks; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-01-10

9.  Pitch comparisons between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a normal-hearing contralateral ear.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Olivier Macherey; Johan H M Frijns; Patrick R Axon; Randy K Kalkman; Patrick Boyle; David M Baguley; John Briggs; John M Deeks; Jeroen J Briaire; Xavier Barreau; René Dauman
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-06-05

10.  Pulse-rate discrimination by cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners with and without binaural cues.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Christopher J Long; John M Deeks
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.