Literature DB >> 2794249

Temporal gaps in noise and sinusoids.

D M Green1, T G Forrest.   

Abstract

The ability of human observers to detect partially filled or completely silent intervals (gaps) was measured using a variety of different waveforms. The slopes of the psychometric functions for gap detection using broadband noise are dependent upon the amount of noise remaining during the gap. For completely silent intervals, the psychometric function covers a range of only 2 ms, but the psychometric functions for partially filled intervals are less steep. The detection of gaps in narrow-band noise (surrounded by complementary band-reject maskers) is strongly influenced by the signal-to-noise ratio. The signal bandwidth and center frequency also influence detectability. Gap detection improved as signal bandwidth increased, and detection improved when signal bands containing gaps were centered at higher frequencies. Detection of gaps in single components of a 21-component, equal-amplitude complex also showed lower thresholds as the frequency of the component containing the gap increased. Increasing the number of components in the complex that contained the gap improved the detectability of the gap, more so when the gaps were all presented at the same time (synchronous condition). Uncertainty about the temporal position of the gap within the observation interval made the gap more difficult to detect. This temporal uncertainty effect occurred for gaps in broadband noise, in narrow-band noise, and in sinusoidal waveforms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2794249     DOI: 10.1121/1.398731

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


  9 in total

1.  Gap detection in modulated noise: across-frequency facilitation and interference.

Authors:  John H Grose; Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Detection of gaps in sinusoids by frog auditory nerve fibers: importance in AM coding.

Authors:  A S Feng; W Y Lin; L Sun
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 1.836

3.  Biological markers of auditory gap detection in young, middle-aged, and older adults.

Authors:  Bernhard Ross; Bruce Schneider; Joel S Snyder; Claude Alain
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-04-09       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Age-related alteration in processing of temporal sound features in the auditory midbrain of the CBA mouse.

Authors:  J P Walton; R D Frisina; W E O'Neill
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1998-04-01       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Stimulus change detection in phasic auditory units in the frog midbrain: frequency and ear specific adaptation.

Authors:  Abhilash Ponnath; Kim L Hoke; Hamilton E Farris
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 1.836

6.  Arctiid moth clicks can degrade the accuracy of range difference discrimination in echolocating big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus.

Authors:  L A Miller
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 1.836

7.  Age-related differences in gap detection: effects of task difficulty and cognitive ability.

Authors:  Kelly C Harris; Mark A Eckert; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-10-02       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Mapping spikes to sensations.

Authors:  Maik C Stüttgen; Cornelius Schwarz; Frank Jäkel
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Psychophysical measurements in children: challenges, pitfalls, and considerations.

Authors:  Caroline Witton; Joel B Talcott; G Bruce Henning
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 2.984

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.