Literature DB >> 3584689

Comodulation detection differences using noise-band signals.

D McFadden.   

Abstract

In a variant of the standard paradigm employed to study comodulation masking release (CMR), a narrow noise band was used as a signal in the presence of "cue" bands which had either the same or different temporal envelopes. The number of cue bands present ranged from zero to four; when there were two or four cue bands, they were either all presented at the same overall level or the spectral profile was "scrambled" in a haphazard manner. Different noise samples were presented within and across trials. The result was in the opposite direction from the standard CMR outcome; that is, better performance was obtained when the envelopes of the cue band(s) were uncorrelated with those of the signal band than when they were correlated. These comodulation detection differences (CDDs) ranged from a decibel or two up to 10-12 dB in different conditions, and were generally larger the more cue bands present. Standard CMR conditions, which were run as controls, revealed that the detectability of a tonal signal does not increase as the number of cue bands is increased from one to four-an outcome which differs from those obtained in profile analysis experiments. The data taken with the equal-level and the scrambled-level cues differed little in both the CDD and the CMR conditions. All noise bands were 100 Hz wide, and approximately 250 ms in duration. The signal band in CDD and the masker band in CMR were centered at 2500 Hz. The psychophysical procedure was two-interval forced choice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3584689     DOI: 10.1121/1.394504

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


  11 in total

1.  The effect of amplitude comodulation on auditory object formation in sentence perception.

Authors:  T D Carrell; J M Opie
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1992-10

2.  Binaural comodulation masking release: effects of masker interaural correlation.

Authors:  Joseph W Hall; Emily Buss; John H Grose
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Comodulation detection differences for fixed-frequency and roved-frequency maskers.

Authors:  Joseph W Hall; Emily Buss; John H Grose
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Perceptual coherence in listeners having longstanding childhood hearing losses, listeners with adult-onset hearing losses, and listeners with normal hearing.

Authors:  Andrea Pittman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  The effect of masker level uncertainty on intensity discrimination.

Authors:  Emily Buss
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Masking release in temporally fluctuating noise depends on comodulation and overall level in Cope's gray treefrog.

Authors:  Mark A Bee; Alejandro Vélez
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Comodulation detection differences in children and adults.

Authors:  Joseph W Hall; Emily Buss; John H Grose
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Within- and across-channel factors in the multiband comodulation masking release paradigm.

Authors:  John H Grose; Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Detection of modulated tones in modulated noise by non-human primates.

Authors:  Peter Bohlen; Margit Dylla; Courtney Timms; Ramnarayan Ramachandran
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-05

Review 10.  The cocktail party problem: what is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it?

Authors:  Mark A Bee; Christophe Micheyl
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.231

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.