Literature DB >> 9193052

Masking period patterns of Schroeder-phase complexes: effects of level, number of components, and phase of flanking components.

R P Carlyon1, A J Datta.   

Abstract

Masking period patterns (MPPs) were obtained for maskers consisting of harmonics 2-20 of a 100-Hz fundamental. The signal was always a 5-ms 1100-Hz sinusoid presented 152, 154, 156, 158, or 160 ms after the start of a 400-ms masker. Experiment 1 replicated the finding that, for a masker level of 69 dB component, the shape of the MPP depended strongly on the phases of the components: Summing them in positive Schroeder phase led to a threshold variation of about 18 dB across the MPP, but summing them in negative Schroeder phase produced a flat MPP [A. Kohlrausch and A. Sander, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97, 1817-1829 (1995)]. Reducing the level of the positive-phase masker resulted in a systematic flattening of the MPP, whereas the negative-phase MPPs were flat both at high and at low levels. Experiment 2 showed that removing all components of a positive-phase masker except those close to the signal raised thresholds at the minimum of the MPP. In contrast, a similar manipulation applied to the negative-phase masker produced a uniform elevation of the MPP. Experiment 3 showed that an analogous effect could be obtained by manipulating the phases of masker components remote from the signal. It is shown that several features of the data can be simulated using a nonlinear model of the auditory periphery [C. Giguère and P.C. Woodland, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 331-342 (1994)].

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9193052     DOI: 10.1121/1.418325

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


  11 in total

1.  Estimates of auditory filter phase response at and below characteristic frequency.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham; Stephan D Ewert
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Discrimination of time-reversed harmonic complexes by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Amanda M Lauer; Michelle Molis; Marjorie R Leek
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-08-25

3.  Sensitivity of cochlear nucleus neurons to spatio-temporal changes in auditory nerve activity.

Authors:  Grace I Wang; Bertrand Delgutte
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-09-12       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Phase effects in masking by harmonic complexes: speech recognition.

Authors:  Mickael L D Deroche; John F Culling; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-09-27       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Illusory auditory continuity despite neural evidence to the contrary.

Authors:  Lars Riecke; Christophe Micheyl; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.622

6.  Classification of natural textures in echolocation.

Authors:  Jan-Eric Grunwald; Sven Schörnich; Lutz Wiegrebe
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  On- and off-frequency forward masking by Schroeder-phase complexes.

Authors:  Magdalena Wojtczak; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-07-21

8.  Phase effects in masking by harmonic complexes in birds.

Authors:  Amanda M Lauer; Robert J Dooling; Marjorie R Leek; Jennifer J Lentz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  The role of compression in the simultaneous masker phase effect.

Authors:  Hisaaki Tabuchi; Bernhard Laback; Thibaud Necciari; Piotr Majdak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.