Literature DB >> 4019909

Differential sensitivity to tonal frequency and to the rate of amplitude modulation of broadband noise by normally hearing listeners.

C Formby.   

Abstract

Differential sensitivities for tones which varied in frequency (containing cues for place and periodicity) and for broadband noise which varied in the rate of sinusoidal amplitude modulation (presumably containing only a periodicity cue) were measured at common frequencies and modulation rates of the stimulus for four normally hearing listeners. A forced-choice adaptive psychophysical procedure was used in all measurements. Through 60 Hz, tonal-frequency and rate discrimination were similar (on average, 2.5-3.0 Hz) across listeners. From 80-400 Hz, differential sensitivity for tones was between 1.0 and 2.0 Hz, whereas values for rate discrimination increased almost linearly from about 3.6 to 122.0 Hz. Apparently, differential sensitivities for both tonal frequency and modulation rate are mediated similarly, presumably by the same (periodicity) mechanism, through 60 Hz. Above 60 Hz, the listener is more sensitive to differences in tonal frequency than modulation rate. Detection thresholds for sinusoidal amplitude modulation of noise also were measured for these listeners. An average modulation threshold function was obtained and a half-power frequency was estimated for the function at 60 Hz; from this value a time constant of 2.65 ms may be derived, which is consistent with time constants measured by other psychophysical methods. These data further point to some change in perceptual quality above about 60 Hz, that frequency above which we found tonal-frequency and rate discrimination functions to separate.

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 4019909     DOI: 10.1121/1.392456

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


  9 in total

1.  Temporal modulation transfer function for efficient assessment of auditory temporal resolution.

Authors:  Yi Shen; Virginia M Richards
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Developmental hearing loss impedes auditory task learning and performance in gerbils.

Authors:  Gardiner von Trapp; Ishita Aloni; Stephen Young; Malcolm N Semple; Dan H Sanes
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Sensitivity of school-aged children to pitch-related cues.

Authors:  Mickael L D Deroche; Danielle J Zion; Jaclyn R Schurman; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Fundamental-frequency discrimination using noise-band-vocoded harmonic complexes in older listeners with normal hearing.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Pitch perception beyond the traditional existence region of pitch.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham; Christophe Micheyl; Michael V Keebler; Adam Loper; Sébastien Santurette
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-04-18       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  An evaluation of psychophysical models of auditory change perception.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Christian Kaernbach; Laurent Demany
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Pitch discrimination by ferrets for simple and complex sounds.

Authors:  Kerry M M Walker; Jan W H Schnupp; Sheelah M B Hart-Schnupp; Andrew J King; Jennifer K Bizley
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Auditory sensitivity to spectral modulation phase reversal as a function of modulation depth.

Authors:  Emily Buss; John Grose
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-05       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Perception of stochastic envelopes by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Philip A Gomersall; Richard E Turner; David M Baguley; John M Deeks; Hedwig E Gockel; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 3.208

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.