Literature DB >> 21476666

Auditory discrimination of force of impact.

Robert A Lutfi1, Ching-Ju Liu, Christophe N J Stoelinga.   

Abstract

The auditory discrimination of force of impact was measured for three groups of listeners using sounds synthesized according to first-order equations of motion for the homogenous, isotropic bar [Morse and Ingard (1968). Theoretical Acoustics pp. 175-191]. The three groups were professional percussionists, nonmusicians, and individuals recruited from the general population without regard to musical background. In the two-interval, forced-choice procedure, listeners chose the sound corresponding to the greater force of impact as the length of the bar varied from one presentation to the next. From the equations of motion, a maximum-likelihood test for the task was determined to be of the form Δlog A + αΔ log f > 0, where A and f are the amplitude and frequency of any one partial and α = 0.5. Relative decision weights on Δ log f were obtained from the trial-by-trial responses of listeners and compared to α. Percussionists generally outperformed the other groups; however, the obtained decision weights of all listeners deviated significantly from α and showed variability within groups far in excess of the variability associated with replication. Providing correct feedback after each trial had little effect on the decision weights. The variability in these measures was comparable to that seen in studies involving the auditory discrimination of other source attributes.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21476666      PMCID: PMC3097070          DOI: 10.1121/1.3543969

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


  21 in total

1.  Hearing shape.

Authors:  A J Kunkler-Peck; M T Turvey
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Auditory detection of hollowness.

Authors:  R A Lutfi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Informational masking and musical training.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham; Brian J Fligor; Christine R Mason; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  The psychomechanics of simulated sound sources: material properties of impacted bars.

Authors:  Stephen McAdams; Antoine Chaigne; Vincent Roussarie
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Observer efficiency and weights in a multiple observation task.

Authors:  B G Berg
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Modeling manner of contact in the synthesis of impact sounds for perceptual research.

Authors:  Christophe N J Stoelinga; Robert A Lutfi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Intensity discrimination as a function of frequency and sensation level.

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

8.  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

9.  Auditory correlates of perceived mallet hardness for a set of recorded percussive sound events.

Authors:  D J Freed
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Spectral weights for overall level discrimination in listeners with sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  K A Doherty; R A Lutfi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  7 in total

1.  Modeling manner of contact in the synthesis of impact sounds for perceptual research.

Authors:  Christophe N J Stoelinga; Robert A Lutfi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Adaptive Efficient Coding of Correlated Acoustic Properties.

Authors:  Kai Lu; Wanyi Liu; Kelsey Dutta; Peng Zan; Jonathan B Fritz; Shihab A Shamma
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Comparing sound localization deficits in bilateral cochlear-implant users and vocoder simulations with normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Heath Jones; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2014-11-10       Impact factor: 3.293

4.  Effect of Context on the Contribution of Individual Harmonics to Residue Pitch.

Authors:  Hedwig E Gockel; Sami Alsindi; Charles Hardy; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-07-28

5.  Temporal Loudness Weights Are Frequency Specific.

Authors:  Alexander Fischenich; Jan Hots; Jesko Verhey; Daniel Oberfeld
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-03-19

6.  The dominance of haptics over audition in controlling wrist velocity during striking movements.

Authors:  Yinan Cao; Bruno L Giordano; Federico Avanzini; Stephen McAdams
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Temporal loudness weights: Primacy effects, loudness dominance and their interaction.

Authors:  Alexander Fischenich; Jan Hots; Jesko Verhey; Julia Guldan; Daniel Oberfeld
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.