Literature DB >> 12430821

Tests of a within-channel account of comodulation detection differences.

Brian C J Moore1, Stephen J Borrill.   

Abstract

The threshold for detecting a narrow-band noise signal in one or more masking noise bands is higher when the signal and masker bands have the same envelope (correlated condition) than when they have independent envelopes (uncorrelated condition). This comodulation detection difference (CDD) might be caused by perceptual grouping of the signal and masker bands when they are correlated. Alternatively, CDD may occur because, in the uncorrelated condition, the signal can be detected in the dips of the masker. A previous paper [S. J. Borrill and B. C. J. Moore, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111, 309-319 (2002)] described results and a model supporting a dip-listening explanation. The model predicted steeper psychometric functions for the correlated than for the uncorrelated condition, a prediction confirmed by experiment 1. In experiment 2, the width of the signal and masker bands was varied. The dip-listening model predicts a small decrease in CDD with increasing bandwidth, while an account based on perceptual grouping predicts a substantial decrease, as across-channel sensitivity to envelope disparity decreases with increasing envelope modulation rate. The CDD was independent of bandwidth. Experiment 3 showed no effect of masker-signal onset asynchrony on CDD, even though asynchrony should reduce perceptual grouping. An explanation of CDD is proposed based on the suppression that has been observed in cochlear mechanics and in the auditory nerve.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12430821     DOI: 10.1121/1.1508793

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


  6 in total

1.  Influence of amplitude modulated noise on the recognition of communication signals in the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus.

Authors:  B Ronacher; C Hoffmann
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2003-05-15       Impact factor: 1.836

2.  Comodulation detection differences for fixed-frequency and roved-frequency maskers.

Authors:  Joseph W Hall; Emily Buss; John H Grose
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The effect of masker level uncertainty on intensity discrimination.

Authors:  Emily Buss
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Comodulation detection differences in children and adults.

Authors:  Joseph W Hall; Emily Buss; John H Grose
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Within- and across-channel factors in the multiband comodulation masking release paradigm.

Authors:  John H Grose; Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Detection of modulated tones in modulated noise by non-human primates.

Authors:  Peter Bohlen; Margit Dylla; Courtney Timms; Ramnarayan Ramachandran
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-05
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.