Literature DB >> 2745880

Modulation masking: effects of modulation frequency, depth, and phase.

S P Bacon1, D W Grantham.   

Abstract

Modulation thresholds were measured for a sinusoidally amplitude-modulated (SAM) broadband noise in the presence of a SAM broadband background noise with a modulation depth (mm) of 0.00, 0.25, or 0.50, where the condition mm = 0.00 corresponds to standard (unmasked) modulation detection. The modulation frequency of the masker was 4, 16, or 64 Hz; the modulation frequency of the signal ranged from 2-512 Hz. The greatest amount of modulation masking (masked threshold minus unmasked threshold) typically occurred when the signal frequency was near the masker frequency. The modulation masking patterns (amount of modulation masking versus signal frequency) for the 4-Hz masker were low pass, whereas the patterns for the 16- and 64-Hz maskers were somewhat bandpass (although not strictly so). In general, the greater the modulation depth of the masker, the greater the amount of modulation masking (although this trend was reversed for the 4-Hz masker at high signal frequencies). These modulation-masking data suggest that there are channels in the auditory system which are tuned for the detection of modulation frequency, much like there are channels (critical bands or auditory filters) tuned for the detection of spectral frequency.

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2745880     DOI: 10.1121/1.397751

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


  46 in total

1.  The effect of carrier level on tuning in amplitude-modulation masking.

Authors:  Magdalena Wojtczak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Channel selection in the modulation domain for improved speech intelligibility in noise.

Authors:  Kamil K Wójcicki; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The effect of narrow-band noise maskers on increment detection.

Authors:  Jessica J Messersmith; Harisadhan Patra; Walt Jesteadt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Psychometric functions for sentence recognition in sinusoidally amplitude-modulated noises.

Authors:  Yi Shen; Nicole K Manzano; Virginia M Richards
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Gap detection in school-age children and adults: effects of inherent envelope modulation and the availability of cues across frequency.

Authors:  Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall; Heather Porter; John H Grose
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-06-01       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Forward masking in the amplitude-modulation domain for tone carriers: psychophysical results and physiological correlates.

Authors:  Magdalena Wojtczak; Paul C Nelson; Neal F Viemeister; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-12-23

7.  Cues for masked amplitude-modulation detection.

Authors:  Paul C Nelson; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Neural rate and timing cues for detection and discrimination of amplitude-modulated tones in the awake rabbit inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Paul C Nelson; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Age-Related Changes in Processing Simultaneous Amplitude Modulated Sounds Assessed Using Envelope Following Responses.

Authors:  Aravindakshan Parthasarathy; Jesyin Lai; Edward L Bartlett
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-23

10.  Dip listening or modulation masking? Call recognition by green treefrogs (Hyla cinerea) in temporally fluctuating noise.

Authors:  Alejandro Vélez; Gerlinde Höbel; Noah M Gordon; Mark A Bee
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 1.836

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.