Literature DB >> 2651498

Models of the additivity of masking.

L E Humes1, W Jesteadt.   

Abstract

Three models of masking additivity are reviewed, which are referred to as the high-compression model [M. J. Penner, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 67, 608-616 (1980); M. J. Penner and R. M. Shiffrin, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 67, 617-627 (1980)], the power-law model [R. A. Lutfi, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 73, 262-267 (1983); 80, 422-428 (1986)], and the modified power-law model with compressed internal noise [Humes et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83, 188-202 (1988)]. While the high-compression model was derived from data for two or more nonsimultaneous maskers and the power-law model was derived from data for two or more simultaneous maskers, the modified power-law model can be applied to both cases. The modified power-law model assumes that the threshold in quiet is equivalent to a masked threshold resulting from an internal noise that is continually present. Additional assumptions concern the interaction of two maskers prior to the addition of the masking effects. Most of the data on the additivity of masking are well described by the modified power-law model, regardless of the nature of the maskers. Thus the model provides a good description of data for combined simultaneous maskers and combined nonsimultaneous maskers, a task heretofore requiring the use of at least two separate and independently developed models.

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2651498     DOI: 10.1121/1.397459

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


  12 in total

1.  Forward masking additivity and auditory compression at low and high frequencies.

Authors:  Christopher J Plack; Catherine G O'Hanlon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-09

2.  Effects of background noise level on behavioral estimates of basilar-membrane compression.

Authors:  Melanie J Gregan; Peggy B Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Masking by inaudible sounds and the linearity of temporal summation.

Authors:  Christopher J Plack; Andrew J Oxenham; Vit Drga
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-08-23       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Nonadditivity of forward and simultaneous masking.

Authors:  Adam Svec; Suyash N Joshi; Walt Jesteadt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effects of external noise on detection of intensity increments.

Authors:  Walt Jesteadt; Kim S Schairer; Lance Nizami; Samar Khaddam; Stephen T Neely
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Computational modeling of individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities.

Authors:  Skyler G Jennings; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-09-30

7.  Exploring the source of the mid-level hump for intensity discrimination in quiet and the effects of noise.

Authors:  Elin Roverud; Elizabeth A Strickland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Behavioral estimates of basilar-membrane compression: additivity of forward masking in noise-masked normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Melanie J Gregan; Peggy B Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Auditory filter tuning inferred with short sinusoidal and notched-noise maskers.

Authors:  Skyler G Jennings; Elizabeth A Strickland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Characterizing perceptual performance at multiple discrimination precisions in external noise.

Authors:  Seong-Taek Jeon; Zhong-Lin Lu; Barbara Anne Dosher
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.129

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.