+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Comodulation detection differences using noise-band signals



Comodulation detection differences using noise-band signals



Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 81(5): 1519-1527



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.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 039614111

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 3584689

DOI: 10.1121/1.394504


Related references

Profile analysis and comodulation detection differences using narrow bands of noise and their relation to comodulation masking release. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 95(4): 2180-2191, 1994

Inter-individual differences in binaural detection of low-frequency or high-frequency tonal signals masked by narrow-band or broadband noise. Journal Of The Acoustical Society Of America. 103(4): 2069-2078, Il, 1998

High-frequency masking-level differences with narrow-band noise signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 56(4): 1226-1230, 1974

Narrow-band noise and tones as signals in binaural detection. J Acoust Soc Amer 38(2): 202-206, 1965

Detection of complex auditory signals in noise and the critical band concepts. Dissertation Absts 19(12): 3380-3381, 1959

Masked detection thresholds and temporal integration for noise band signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96(1): 102-114, 1994

Modulation discrimination interference and comodulation masking release as a function of the number and spectral placement of narrow-band noise modulators. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100(4 Pt 1): 2373-2381, 1996

The role of the auditory periphery in comodulation detection difference and comodulation masking release. Biological Cybernetics 97(5-6): 397-411, 2007

Comodulation detection differences in children and adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123(4): 2213-2219, 2008

Tests of a within-channel account of comodulation detection differences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112(5 Pt 1): 2099-2109, 2002

Comodulation detection differences with multiple signal bands. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 82(S1): S41-S42, 1987

Comodulation detection differences with multiple signal bands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 87(1): 292-303, 1990

Temporal decline of masking and comodulation detection differences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88(2): 711-724, 1990

Evidence that comodulation detection differences depend on within-channel mechanisms. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111(1 Part 1): 309-319, 2002

Influence of contralateral stimulation by two-tone complexes, narrow-band and broad-band noise signals on the 2f1-f2 distortion product otoacoustic emission levels in humans. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 122(6): 613-619, 2002