Literature DB >> 18646989

On the minimum audible difference in direct-to-reverberant energy ratio.

Erik Larsen1, Nandini Iyer, Charissa R Lansing, Albert S Feng.   

Abstract

The goals of this study were to measure sensitivity to the direct-to-reverberant energy ratio (D/R) across a wide range of D/R values and to gain insight into which cues are used in the discrimination process. The main finding is that changes in D/R are discriminated primarily based on spectral cues. Temporal cues may be used but only when spectral cues are diminished or not available, while sensitivity to interaural cross-correlation is too low to be useful in any of the conditions tested. These findings are based on an acoustic analysis of these variables and the results of two psychophysical experiments. The first experiment employs wideband noise with two values for onset and offset times to determine the D/R just-noticeable difference at -10, 0, 10, and 20 dB D/R. This yielded substantially higher sensitivity to D/R at 0 and 10 dB D/R (2-3 dB) than has been reported previously, while sensitivity is much lower at -10 and 20 dB D/R. The second experiment consists of three parts where specific cues to D/R are reduced or removed, which enabled the specified rank ordering of the cues. The acoustic analysis and psychophysical experiments also provide an explanation for the "auditory horizon effect."

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18646989      PMCID: PMC2677334          DOI: 10.1121/1.2936368

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


  24 in total

1.  Touch can change visual slant perception.

Authors:  M O Ernst; M S Banks; H H Bülthoff
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Assessing auditory distance perception using virtual acoustics.

Authors:  Pavel Zahorik
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Direct-to-reverberant energy ratio sensitivity.

Authors:  Pavel Zahorik
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Knowledge about typical source output influences perceived auditory distance.

Authors:  John W Philbeck; Donald H Mershon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Detection of static and dynamic changes in interaural correlation.

Authors:  Susan E Boehnke; Susan E Hall; Torsten Marquardt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Slant from texture and disparity cues: optimal cue combination.

Authors:  James M Hillis; Simon J Watt; Michael S Landy; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion.

Authors:  Marc O Ernst; Martin S Banks
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-01-24       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Dual role of frequency spectrum in determination of auditory distance.

Authors:  P D Coleman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1968-08       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

Authors:  H Levitt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1971-02       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Frequency discrimination as a function of frequency and sensation level.

Authors:  C C Wier; W Jesteadt; D M Green
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  14 in total

1.  Neuronal representations of distance in human auditory cortex.

Authors:  Norbert Kopčo; Samantha Huang; John W Belliveau; Tommi Raij; Chinmayi Tengshe; Jyrki Ahveninen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-06-14       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Psychophysics and neuronal bases of sound localization in humans.

Authors:  Jyrki Ahveninen; Norbert Kopčo; Iiro P Jääskeläinen
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-07-22       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Effect of stimulus spectrum on distance perception for nearby sources.

Authors:  Norbert Kopčo; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Auditory distance coding in rabbit midbrain neurons and human perception: monaural amplitude modulation depth as a cue.

Authors:  Duck O Kim; Pavel Zahorik; Laurel H Carney; Brian B Bishop; Shigeyuki Kuwada
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Evidence for enhanced discrimination of virtual auditory distance among blind listeners using level and direct-to-reverberant cues.

Authors:  Andrew J Kolarik; Silvia Cirstea; Shahina Pardhan
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Subjective scaling of spatial room acoustic parameters influenced by visual environmental cues.

Authors:  Daniel L Valente; Jonas Braasch
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 7.  Auditory distance perception in humans: a review of cues, development, neuronal bases, and effects of sensory loss.

Authors:  Andrew J Kolarik; Brian C J Moore; Pavel Zahorik; Silvia Cirstea; Shahina Pardhan
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  Effects of Varying Reverberation on Music Perception for Young Normal-Hearing and Old Hearing-Impaired Listeners.

Authors:  Paul N Reinhart; Pamela E Souza
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  Sound Spectrum Influences Auditory Distance Perception of Sound Sources Located in a Room Environment.

Authors:  Ignacio Spiousas; Pablo E Etchemendy; Manuel C Eguia; Esteban R Calcagno; Ezequiel Abregú; Ramiro O Vergara
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-06-22

10.  An Auditory Illusion of Proximity of the Source Induced by Sonic Crystals.

Authors:  Ignacio Spiousas; Pablo E Etchemendy; Ramiro O Vergara; Esteban R Calcagno; Manuel C Eguia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.