Literature DB >> 20058983

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

Joyce Rodríguez1, Stephen T Neely, Harisadhan Patra, Judy Kopun, Walt Jesteadt, Hongyang Tan, Michael P Gorga.   

Abstract

This study tested the hypothesis that suppression contributes to the difference between simultaneous masking (SM) and forward masking (FM). To obtain an alternative estimate of suppression, distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) were measured in the presence of a suppressor tone. Psychophysical-masking and DPOAE-suppression measurements were made in 22 normal-hearing subjects for a 4000-Hz signal/f(2) and two masker/suppressor frequencies: 2141 and 4281 Hz. Differences between SM and FM at the same masker level were used to provide a psychophysical estimate of suppression. The increase in L(2) to maintain a constant output (L(d)) provided a DPOAE estimate of suppression for a range of suppressor levels. The similarity of the psychophysical and DPOAE estimates for the two masker/suppressor frequencies suggests that the difference in amount of masking between SM and FM is at least partially due to suppression.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20058983      PMCID: PMC2821167          DOI: 10.1121/1.3257224

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


  47 in total

1.  Forward masking: adaptation or integration?

Authors:  A J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Physiological mechanisms of psychophysical masking: observations from auditory-nerve fibers.

Authors:  B Delgutte
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Psychophysical evidence for lateral inhibition in hearing.

Authors:  T Houtgast
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1972-06       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Cochlear mechanics, nonlinearities, and cochlear potentials.

Authors:  P Dallos; M A Cheatham; J Ferraro
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1974-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Two-tone inhibition in auditory-nerve fibers.

Authors:  M B Sachs; N Y Kiang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1968-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

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

7.  Properties of 'two-tone inhibition' in primary auditory neurones.

Authors:  R M Arthur; R R Pfeiffer; N Suga
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1971-02       Impact factor: 5.182

8.  Distortion product otoacoustic emission suppression tuning curves in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired human ears.

Authors:  Michael P Gorga; Stephen T Neely; Darcia M Dierking; Patricia A Dorn; Brenda M Hoover; Denis F Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Ipsilateral distortion product otoacoustic emission (2f1-f2) suppression in children with sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  Carolina Abdala; Tracy S Fitzgerald
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Maturation of cochlear nonlinearity as measured by distortion product otoacoustic emission suppression growth in humans.

Authors:  Caroline Abdala; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  7 in total

1.  Stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission suppression tuning in humans: comparison to behavioral tuning.

Authors:  Karolina K Charaziak; Pamela Souza; Jonathan H Siegel
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-09-07

2.  Comparing behavioral and physiological measures of combination tones: sex and race differences.

Authors:  Dennis McFadden; Edward G Pasanen; Erin M Leshikar; Michelle D Hsieh; Mindy M Maloney
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Temporal aspects of suppression in distortion-product otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Joyce Rodriguez; Stephen T Neely
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Contralateral efferent reflex effects on threshold and suprathreshold psychoacoustical tuning curves at low and high frequencies.

Authors:  Enzo Aguilar; Almudena Eustaquio-Martin; Enrique A Lopez-Poveda
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-02-20

5.  Distortion product emissions from a cochlear model with nonlinear mechanoelectrical transduction in outer hair cells.

Authors:  Yi-Wen Liu; Stephen T Neely
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  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

7.  Multi-tone suppression of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in humans.

Authors:  Nicole E Sieck; Daniel M Rasetshwane; Judy G Kopun; Walt Jesteadt; Michael P Gorga; Stephen T Neely
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 1.840

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.