Literature DB >> 19760461

Interaural correlation fails to account for detection in a classic binaural task: dynamic ITDs dominate N0Spi detection.

Marcel van der Heijden1, Philip X Joris.   

Abstract

Binaural signal detection in an NoSpi task relies on interaural disparities introduced by adding an antiphasic signal to diotic noise. What metric of interaural disparity best predicts performance? Some models use interaural correlation; others differentiate between dynamic interaural time differences (ITDs) and interaural level differences (ILDs) of the effective stimulus. To examine the relative contributions of ITDs and ILDs in binaural detection, we developed a novel signal processing technique that selectively degrades different aspects (potential cues) of binaural stimuli (e.g., only ITDs are scrambled). Degrading a particular cue will affect performance only if that cue is relevant to the binaural processing underlying detection. This selective scrambling technique was applied to the stimuli of a classic N0Spi task in which the listener had to detect an antiphasic 500-Hz signal in the presence of a diotic wideband noise masker. Data obtained from five listeners showed that (1) selective scrambling of ILDs had little effect on binaural detection, (2) selective scrambling of ITDs significantly degraded detection, and (3) combined scrambling of ILDs and ITDs had the same effect as exclusive scrambling of ITDs. Regarding the question which stimulus properties determine detection, we conclude that for this binaural task (1) dynamic ITDs dominate detection performance, (2) ILDs are largely irrelevant, and (3) interaural correlation of the stimulus is a poor predictor of detection. Two simple stimulus-based models that each reproduce all binaural aspects of the data quite well are described: (1) a single-parameter detection model using ITD variance as detection criterion and (2) a compressive transformation followed by a crosscorrelation analysis. The success of both of these contrasting models shows that our data alone cannot reveal the mechanisms underlying the dominance of ITD cues. The physiological implications of our findings are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19760461      PMCID: PMC2820206          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-009-0185-8

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


  43 in total

1.  The mechanical waveform of the basilar membrane. III. Intensity effects.

Authors:  E de Boer; A L Nuttall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Analysis of binaural detection models for dependence on interaural target parameters.

Authors:  R H Domnitz; H S Colburn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Theory of binaural interaction based on auditory-nerve data. I. General strategy and preliminary results on interaural discrimination.

Authors:  H S Colburn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1973-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Differences of interaural phase and level in detection and lateralization: 250 Hz.

Authors:  D McFadden; L A Jeffress; H L Ermey
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1971-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Masking-level differences obtained with a pulsed tonal masker.

Authors:  E R Hafter; S C Carrier
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1970-04       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Detectability of varying interaural temporal differences.

Authors:  D W Grantham; F L Wightman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1978-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Release from masking caused by envelope fluctuations.

Authors:  S Buus
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1985-12       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Interaural correlation discrimination: i. bandwidth and level dependence.

Authors:  K J Gabriel; H S Colburn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1981-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Lateralization of jittered tones.

Authors:  J Blauert
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  The relationship between spike rate and synchrony in responses of auditory-nerve fibers to single tones.

Authors:  D H Johnson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1980-10       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  11 in total

1.  Interaural fluctuations and the detection of interaural incoherence. IV. The effect of compression on stimulus statistics.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Untrained listeners experience difficulty detecting interaural correlation changes in narrowband noises.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Mary E Barrett
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Predicting spike timing in highly synchronous auditory neurons at different sound levels.

Authors:  Bertrand Fontaine; Victor Benichoux; Philip X Joris; Romain Brette
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  The effect of interaural fluctuation rate on correlation change discrimination.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-11-21

5.  Interaural envelope correlation change discrimination in bilateral cochlear implantees: effects of mismatch, centering, and onset of deafness.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Neural coding and perception of auditory motion direction based on interaural time differences.

Authors:  Nathaniel J Zuk; Bertrand Delgutte
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Binaural unmasking with temporal envelope and fine structure in listeners with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ann E Todd; Matthew J Goupell; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  The role of envelope statistics in detecting changes in interaural correlation.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Binaural detection with narrowband and wideband reproducible noise maskers. IV. Models using interaural time, level, and envelope differences.

Authors:  Junwen Mao; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  The effect of different cochlear implant microphones on acoustic hearing individuals' binaural benefits for speech perception in noise.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Daniel J Freed; Laurel M Fisher; Ivan Pal; Sigfrid D Soli
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.