Literature DB >> 3558959

Individual differences in auditory capabilities. I.

D M Johnson, C S Watson, J K Jensen.   

Abstract

Twenty-eight audiometrically normal adult listeners were given a variety of auditory tests, ranging from quiet and masked thresholds through the discrimination of simple and moderately complex temporal patterns. Test-retest reliability was good. Individual differences persisted on a variety of psychoacoustic tasks following a period of training using adaptive threshold-tracking methods, and with trial-by-trial feedback. Large individual differences in performance on temporal-sequence-discrimination tasks suggest that this form of temporal processing may be of clinical significance. In addition, high correlations were obtained within given classes of tests (as, between all tests of frequency discrimination) and between certain classes of tests (as, between tests of frequency discrimination and those of sequence discrimination). Patterns of individual differences were found which support the conclusion that individual differences in auditory performance are, in part, a function of patterns of independent abilities.

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3558959     DOI: 10.1121/1.394907

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


  10 in total

1.  Using individual differences to test the role of temporal and place cues in coding frequency modulation.

Authors:  Kelly L Whiteford; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Do different 'magnocellular tasks' probe the same neural substrate?

Authors:  Patrick T Goodbourn; Jenny M Bosten; Ruth E Hogg; Gary Bargary; Adam J Lawrance-Owen; J D Mollon
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  A test of model classes accounting for individual differences in the cocktail-party effect.

Authors:  Robert A Lutfi; Briana Rodriguez; Jungmee Lee; Torben Pastore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Many listeners cannot discriminate major vs minor tone-scrambles regardless of presentation rate.

Authors:  Solena Mednicoff; Stephanie Mejia; Jordan Ali Rashid; Charles Chubb
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Aging and auditory temporal sequencing: ordering the elements of repeating tone patterns.

Authors:  L J Trainor; S E Trehub
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1989-05

6.  Asymmetric temporal envelope encoding: Implications for within- and across-ear envelope comparison.

Authors:  Sean R Anderson; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Online sonification for golf putting gesture: reduced variability of motor behaviour and perceptual judgement.

Authors:  Benjamin O'Brien; Brett Juhas; Marta Bieńkiewicz; Frank Buloup; Lionel Bringoux; Christophe Bourdin
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Factors affecting sensitivity to frequency change in school-age children and adults.

Authors:  Emily Buss; Crystal N Taylor; Lori J Leibold
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  The Listener Effect in Multitalker Speech Segregation and Talker Identification.

Authors:  Robert A Lutfi; Briana Rodriguez; Jungmee Lee
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

10.  Evidence for shared cognitive processing of pitch in music and language.

Authors:  Tyler K Perrachione; Evelina G Fedorenko; Louis Vinke; Edward Gibson; Laura C Dilley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.