Literature DB >> 16261268

The role of suppression in the upward spread of masking.

Ifat Yasin1, Christopher J Plack.   

Abstract

The upward spread of masking refers to the higher growth rate of masking for maskers lower in frequency than the signal, compared to maskers at the signal frequency (Wegel RL, Lane CE. The auditory masking of one pure tone by another and its possible relation to the dynamics of the inner ear. Physics Rev. 23:266-285, 1924; Egan JP, Hake HW. On the masking pattern of a simple auditory stimulus. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 22:622-630, 1950; Delgutte B. Physiological mechanisms of psychophysical masking: Observations from auditory-nerve fibres. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87:791-809, 1990a, Delgutte B. Two-tone rate suppression in auditory-nerve fibres: Dependence on suppressor frequency and level. Hear Res. 49:225-246, 1990b). The upward spread of simultaneous masking may arise from a combination of excitatory and suppressive effects. In this study, growth of masking functions were obtained for a 4-kHz signal masked by an on-frequency (4 kHz) or off-frequency (2.4 kHz), simultaneous or forward masker, in the presence of a notched noise with a center frequency of 4 kHz presented to restrict off-frequency listening. Compression was estimated from the slopes of the off-frequency growth of masking functions. Suppression was estimated by comparing the off-frequency simultaneous- and forward-masked growth of masking functions. Results showed that, for midlevel signals (35-60 dB SPL), the compression exponent estimated from simultaneous and forward masking averaged 0.31 and 0.26, respectively. The maximum amount of suppression (defined as the decrease in the basilar-membrane response to the signal) was variable, ranging from about 6 to 17 dB across subjects. Despite the substantial reduction in the response to the signal, the results suggest that suppression has a minimal effect on the slope of the masking function at mid levels. Rather, upward spread of masking seems to be mainly determined by the compressive basilar-membrane response to the signal in relation to the linear response to the lower-frequency masker.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16261268      PMCID: PMC2504625          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-005-0014-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  58 in total

1.  Evidence for active, nonlinear, negative feedback in the vibration response of the apical region of the in-vivo guinea-pig cochlea.

Authors:  C Zinn; H Maier; H Zenner; A W Gummer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Growth of simultaneous masking for fm < fs: effects of overall frequency and level.

Authors:  S P Bacon; L N Boden; J Lee; J L Repovsch
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Psychophysical suppression as a function of signal frequency: noise and tonal maskers.

Authors:  J Lee; S P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Suppression and the upward spread of masking.

Authors:  A J Oxenham; C J Plack
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Growth rate of simultaneous masking in cat auditory-nerve fibers: relationship to the growth of basilar-membrane motion and the origin of two-tone suppression.

Authors:  X D Pang; J J Guinan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Basilar-membrane nonlinearity and the growth of forward masking.

Authors:  C J Plack; A J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Masking by sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tonal maskers.

Authors:  M J Gregan; S P Bacon; J Lee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Auditory suppression and frequency selectivity in older and younger adults.

Authors:  M S Sommers; S E Gehr
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Short-term temporal integration: evidence for the influence of peripheral compression.

Authors:  A J Oxenham; B C Moore; D A Vickers
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Effect of masker level on overshoot in running- and frozen-noise maskers.

Authors:  R von Klitzing; A Kohlrausch
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  5 in total

1.  The role of suppression in psychophysical tone-on-tone masking.

Authors:  Joyce Rodríguez; Stephen T Neely; Harisadhan Patra; Judy Kopun; Walt Jesteadt; Hongyang Tan; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Computational modeling of individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities.

Authors:  Skyler G Jennings; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-09-30

3.  Auditory filter tuning inferred with short sinusoidal and notched-noise maskers.

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

4.  Signal-processing strategy for restoration of cross-channel suppression in hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Daniel M Rasetshwane; Michael P Gorga; Stephen T Neely
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 4.538

Review 5.  The role of the medial olivocochlear reflex in psychophysical masking and intensity resolution in humans: a review.

Authors:  Skyler G Jennings
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 2.974

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.