Literature DB >> 19173419

Pitch discrimination interference: the role of ear of entry and of octave similarity.

Hedwig E Gockel1, Ervin R Hafter, Brian C J Moore.   

Abstract

Gockel et al. [(2004). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 1092-1104] reported that discrimination of the fundamental frequency (F0) of two sequentially presented complex tones (the target) was impaired when an additional complex tone (the interferer) was presented simultaneously with and to the same ear as the target, even though the target and interferer were filtered into separate frequency regions. This pitch discrimination interference (PDI) was greatest when the target and interferer had similar F0s. The current study examined the role of relative ear of entry of the target and interferer and whether the dependence of the PDI effect on the relative F0 of target and interferer is based on pitch height (F0 as such) or pitch chroma (the musical note). Sensitivity (d(')) was measured for discrimination of the F0 of a target with a nominal F0 of 88 Hz, bandpass filtered from 1375 to 1875 Hz. The interferer was bandpass filtered from 125 to 625 Hz. The contralateral interferer produced marked PDI, but smaller than for ipsilateral presentation. PDI was not larger when the interferer's F0 was twice the nominal target F0 than when it was a factor of 1.9 or 2.1 higher.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19173419      PMCID: PMC2677271          DOI: 10.1121/1.3021308

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


  14 in total

1.  Pitch discrimination of diotic and dichotic tone complexes: harmonic resolvability or harmonic number?

Authors:  Joshua G Bernstein; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Limits to the role of a common fundamental frequency in the fusion of two sounds with different spatial cues.

Authors:  C J Darwin; R W Hukin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Across-frequency interference effects in fundamental frequency discrimination: questioning evidence for two pitch mechanisms.

Authors:  Hedwig Gockel; Robert P Carlyon; Christopher J Plack
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Across-channel interference in intensity discrimination: the role of practice and listening strategy.

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

5.  Across-channel masking of changes in modulation depth for amplitude- and frequency-modulated signals.

Authors:  B C Moore; B R Glasberg; T Gaunt; T Child
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  1991-08

6.  Across-channel masking and comodulation masking release.

Authors:  B C Moore; B R Glasberg; G P Schooneveldt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Comodulation masking release (CMR): effects of signal frequency, flanking-band frequency, masker bandwidth, flanking-band level, and monotic versus dichotic presentation of the flanking band.

Authors:  G P Schooneveldt; B C Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Across-critical-band processing of amplitude-modulated tones.

Authors:  W A Yost; S Sheft
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  The ear as a frequency analyzer. II.

Authors:  R Plomp; A M Mimpen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1968-04       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Audibility of partials in inharmonic complex tones.

Authors:  B C Moore; K Ohgushi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  7 in total

1.  Pitch perception for mixtures of spectrally overlapping harmonic complex tones.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Michael V Keebler; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Modulation frequency discrimination with modulated and unmodulated interference in normal hearing and in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Heather A Kreft; David A Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-04-30

3.  Pitch discrimination interference between binaural and monaural or diotic pitches.

Authors:  Hedwig E Gockel; Robert P Carlyon; Christopher J Plack
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 4.  Pitch, harmonicity and concurrent sound segregation: psychoacoustical and neurophysiological findings.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-09-27       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Combining information across frequency regions in fundamental frequency discrimination.

Authors:  Hedwig E Gockel; Robert P Carlyon; Christopher J Plack
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  A function for binaural integration in auditory grouping and segregation in the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Kyle T Nakamoto; Trevor M Shackleton; David A Magezi; Alan R Palmer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  The Influence of the Psychophysical Assessment Paradigm on Pitch Discrimination for Adults (and a Pilot Sample of Children).

Authors:  Ashley G Flagge; Lucile Puranen; Madhuri S Mulekar
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  2021-09-02
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.