Literature DB >> 9348690

Perceptual segregation of a harmonic from a vowel by interaural time difference and frequency proximity.

C J Darwin1, R W Hukin.   

Abstract

The five experiments reported here examine the conditions under which sounds differing in their interaural time difference (ITD) are segregated for the purposes of perceiving a vowel's identity. Experiment 1 confirms previous findings that (i) a difference in ITD provides only a very weak cue for segregating a vowel's 500-Hz harmonic from the remainder of an isolated vowel; (ii) embedding the harmonic in a series of 500-Hz tones produces some segregation, which is enhanced if the harmonic and the tones differ in ITD from the rest of the vowel; and (iii) when these latter sounds are presented in the same block as isolated vowels, they facilitate segregation of the harmonic by ITD in the isolated vowels. The subsequent experiments show that this last effect, across-trial facilitation, is only produced by sounds which cue both the frequency and the ITD of the harmonic; either alone is insufficient. We also show that: (i) a single cue tone at the frequency of the harmonic is sufficient to facilitate the use of ITD in grouping; (ii) sequential organization by frequency proximity dominates over sequential organization by ITD when simultaneous sound sources are present; and (iii) the effectiveness of a cue tone can be abolished by capturing it into a synchronous harmonic complex. The experiments clarify the conditions under which ITDs contribute to the segregation of simultaneous sounds.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9348690     DOI: 10.1121/1.419641

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


  15 in total

1.  Spectral processing of two concurrent harmonic complexes.

Authors:  Yi Shen; Virginia M Richards
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Spatial cues alone produce inaccurate sound segregation: the effect of interaural time differences.

Authors:  Andrew Schwartz; Josh H McDermott; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  A sound element gets lost in perceptual competition.

Authors:  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Adrian K C Lee; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-07-05       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Localization interference between components in an auditory scene.

Authors:  Adrian K C Lee; Ade Deane-Pratt; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  The effect of frequency cueing on the perceptual segregation of simultaneous tones: Bottom-up and top-down contributions.

Authors:  Yi Shen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 6.  The what, where and how of auditory-object perception.

Authors:  Jennifer K Bizley; Yale E Cohen
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 34.870

Review 7.  Cortical and Sensory Causes of Individual Differences in Selective Attention Ability Among Listeners With Normal Hearing Thresholds.

Authors:  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Nothing is irrelevant in a noisy world: sensory illusions reveal obligatory within-and across-modality integration.

Authors:  Jennifer K Bizley; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Adrian K C Lee
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Auditory stream segregation and the perception of across-frequency synchrony.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Cynthia Hunter; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Ecological origins of perceptual grouping principles in the auditory system.

Authors:  Wiktor Młynarski; Josh H McDermott
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.