Literature DB >> 19173418

Critical bands and critical ratios in animal psychoacoustics: an example using chinchilla data.

William A Yost1, William P Shofner.   

Abstract

This paper suggests that critical ratios obtained in noise-masked tone studies are not good indicators of critical bandwidths obtained in both human and nonhuman animal subjects. A probe-tone detection study using chinchilla subjects suggests that they may be broadband processors in detection tasks as opposed to human subjects who use narrow-band, critical-band processing. If chinchilla and other nonhuman animal subjects are wideband processors, this can partially explain why their critical ratios are significantly greater than those measured in human subjects. Thus, large critical ratios obtained for nonhuman animals may indicate processing inefficiency rather than wide critical bands.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19173418      PMCID: PMC2719489          DOI: 10.1121/1.3037232

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


  21 in total

1.  A level of stimulus representation model for auditory detection and attention.

Authors:  E R Hafter; K Saberi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Cuing effects for informational masking.

Authors:  Virginia M Richards; Donna L Neff
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Normal critical bands in the cat.

Authors:  J O Pickles
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1975 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.494

4.  Comparison of critical ratios and critical bands in the monaural chinchilla.

Authors:  W H Seaton; C Trahiotis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1975-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Auditory filter shapes of CBA/CaJ mice: behavioral assessments.

Authors:  Bradford J May; Sarah Kimar; Cynthia A Prosen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Critical bands and filter characteristics in the ear of the housemouse (Mus musculus).

Authors:  G Ehret
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1976-09-16       Impact factor: 2.086

7.  Intensity and frequency discrimination in one- and two-interval paradigms.

Authors:  W Jesteadt; R C Bilger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1974-06       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  A comparative study of S-N o and E-N- o .

Authors:  C M Reed; R C Bilger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1973-04       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Frequency-response characteristic of auditory observers detecting signals of a single frequency in noise: the probe-signal method.

Authors:  G Z Greenberg; W D Larkin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1968-12       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Critical bands following the selective destruction of cochlear inner and outer hair cells.

Authors:  T G Nienhuys; G M Clark
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1979       Impact factor: 1.494

View more
  9 in total

1.  Precise feature based time scales and frequency decorrelation lead to a sparse auditory code.

Authors:  Chen Chen; Heather L Read; Monty A Escabí
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Octave effect in auditory attention.

Authors:  Tobias Borra; Huib Versnel; Chantal Kemner; A John van Opstal; Raymond van Ee
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Rodent auditory perception: Critical band limitations and plasticity.

Authors:  J King; M Insanally; M Jin; A R O Martins; J A D'amour; R C Froemke
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2015-03-28       Impact factor: 3.590

4.  Behavioural estimates of auditory filter widths in ferrets using notched-noise maskers.

Authors:  Ana Alves-Pinto; Joseph Sollini; Toby Wells; Christian J Sumner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Identifying cues for tone-in-noise detection using decision variable correlation in the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus).

Authors:  Kenneth S Henry; Kassidy N Amburgey; Kristina S Abrams; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  The influence of variations in background noise on Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) detection of boat noise and vocalizations.

Authors:  Athena M Rycyk; Gordon B Bauer; Randall S Wells; Joseph C Gaspard Iii; David A Mann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Transfer Learning for Improved Audio-Based Human Activity Recognition.

Authors:  Stavros Ntalampiras; Ilyas Potamitis
Journal:  Biosensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-06-25

8.  Mammalian behavior and physiology converge to confirm sharper cochlear tuning in humans.

Authors:  Christian J Sumner; Toby T Wells; Christopher Bergevin; Joseph Sollini; Heather A Kreft; Alan R Palmer; Andrew J Oxenham; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Spectrotemporal sound preferences of neighboring inferior colliculus neurons: implications for local circuitry and processing.

Authors:  Chen Chen; Francisco C Rodriguez; Heather L Read; Monty A Escabí
Journal:  Front Neural Circuits       Date:  2012-09-27       Impact factor: 3.492

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.