Literature DB >> 16018486

Dead regions and pitch perception.

Martina Huss1, Brian C J Moore.   

Abstract

The perception of pitch for pure tones with frequencies falling inside low- or high-frequency dead regions (DRs) was examined. Subjects adjusted a variable-frequency tone to match the pitch of a fixed tone. Matches within one ear were often erratic for tones falling in a DR, indicating unclear pitch percepts. Matches across ears of subjects with asymmetric hearing loss, and octave matches within ears, indicated that tones falling within a DR were perceived with an unclear pitch and/or a pitch different from "normal" whenever the tones fell more than 0.5 octave within a low- or high-frequency DR. One unilaterally impaired subject, with only a small surviving region between 3 and 4 kHz, matched a fixed 0.5-kHz tone in his impaired ear with, on average, a 3.75-kHz tone in his better ear. When asked to match the 0.5-kHz tone with an amplitude-modulated tone, he adjusted the carrier and modulation frequencies to about 3.8 and 0.5 kHz, respectively, suggesting that some temporal information was still available. Overall, the results indicate that the pitch of low-frequency tones is not conveyed solely by a temporal code. Possibly, there needs to be a correspondence between place and temporal information for a normal pitch to be perceived.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16018486     DOI: 10.1121/1.1920167

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


  14 in total

1.  The effects of frequency-place shift on consonant confusion in cochlear implant simulations.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Li Xu; Chao-Yang Lee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Impaired perception of temporal fine structure and musical timbre in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Joseph Heng; Gabriela Cantarero; Mounya Elhilali; Charles J Limb
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 3.  The Physiologic and Psychophysical Consequences of Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Eric Hoover
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

4.  Binaural pitch fusion: Comparison of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Corey S Shayman; Emily P Walker; Keri O Bennett; Jennifer R Fowler; Curtis L Hartling; Bess Glickman; Michael R Lasarev; Yonghee Oh
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Kathleen F Faulkner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Residual inhibition functions overlap tinnitus spectra and the region of auditory threshold shift.

Authors:  Larry E Roberts; Graeme Moffat; Michael Baumann; Lawrence M Ward; Daniel J Bosnyak
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2008-08-20

Review 7.  The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2008-10-15

8.  Informational Masking in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners Measured in a Nonspeech Pattern Identification Task.

Authors:  Elin Roverud; Virginia Best; Christine R Mason; Jayaganesh Swaminathan; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  Specificity of the Human Frequency Following Response for Carrier and Modulation Frequency Assessed Using Adaptation.

Authors:  Hedwig E Gockel; Alexandra Krugliak; Christopher J Plack; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-07-11

10.  Binaural Diplacusis and Its Relationship with Hearing-Threshold Asymmetry.

Authors:  David Colin; Christophe Micheyl; Anneline Girod; Eric Truy; Stéphane Gallégo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.