+ 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 masking release (CMR): effects of signal frequency, flanking-band frequency, masker bandwidth, flanking-band level, and monotic versus dichotic presentation of the flanking band



Comodulation masking release (CMR): effects of signal frequency, flanking-band frequency, masker bandwidth, flanking-band level, and monotic versus dichotic presentation of the flanking band



Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 82(6): 1944-1956



In experiment I, thresholds for 400-ms sinusoidal signals were measured in the presence of a continuous 25-Hz-wide noise centered at signal frequencies (fs) ranging from 250 to 8000 Hz in 1-oct steps. The masker was presented either alone or together with a second continuous 25-Hz-wide band of noise (the flanking band) whose envelope was either correlated with that of the on-frequency band or was uncorrelated; its center frequency ranged from 0.5 fs to 1.5 fs. The flanking band was presented either in the same ear (monotic condition) as the signal plus masker or in the opposite ear (dichotic condition). The on-frequency band and the flanking band each had an overall level of 67 dB SPL. The comodulation masking release, CMR (U-C), is defined as the difference between the thresholds for the uncorrelated and correlated conditions. The CMR (U-C) showed two components: a broadly tuned component, occurring at all signal frequencies and all flanking-band frequencies, and occurring for both monotic and dichotic conditions; and a component restricted to the monotic condition and to flanking-band frequencies close to fs. This sharply tuned component was small for low signal frequencies, increased markedly at 2000 and 4000 Hz, and decreased at 8000 Hz. Experiment II showed that the sharply tuned component of the CMR (U-C) was slightly reduced in magnitude when the level of the flanking band was 10 dB above that of the on-frequency band and was markedly reduced when the level was 10 dB below, whereas the broadly tuned component and the dichotic CMR (U-C) were only slightly affected. Experiment III showed that the sharply tuned component of the CMR (U-C) was markedly reduced when the bandwidths of the on-frequency and flanking bands were increased to 100 Hz, while the broadly tuned component and the dichotic CMR (U-C) decreased only slightly. The argument here is that the sharply tuned component of the monotic CMR (U-C) results from beating between the "carrier" frequencies of the two masker bands. This introduces periodic zeros in the masker envelope, which facilitate signal detection. The broadly tuned component, which is probably a "true" CMR, was only about 3 dB.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 039614113

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 3429732

DOI: 10.1121/1.395639


Related references

Comodulation masking release as a function of bandwidth and time delay between on-frequency and flanking-band maskers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88(2): 725-731, 1990

Comodulation masking release as a function of type of signal, gated or continuous masking, monaural or dichotic presentation of flanking bands, and center frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93(4 Pt 1): 2106-2115, 1993

Effects of flanking band proximity number and modulation pattern on comodulation masking release. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 87(1): 269-283, 1990

Comodulation masking release (CMR): effects of gating as a function of number of flanking bands and masker bandwidth. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97(6): 3768-3774, 1995

Release from masking through ipsilateral and contralateral comodulation of a flanking band. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76(Suppl. 1): S76, 1984

Comodulation masking release determined in the mouse (Mus musculus) using a flanking-band paradigm. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 11(1): 79-88, 2010

Comodulation masking release for various monaural and binaural combinations of the signal, on-frequency, and flanking bands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 85(1): 262-272, 1989

Can comodulation masking release occur when frequency changes could promote perceptual segregation of the on-frequency and flanking bands?. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 787: 475-482, 2013

Comodulation masking release (CMR) as a function of masker bandwidth, modulator bandwidth, and signal duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 85(1): 273-281, 1989

Comodulation masking release: effects of varying the level, duration, and time delay of the cue band. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80(6): 1658-1667, 1986

Partial masking in the monkey effect of masker bandwidth and masker band spacing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66(1): 107-114, 1979

Masking by modulated and unmodulated noise: effects of bandwidth, modulation rate, signal frequency, and masker level. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101(3): 1600-1610, 1997

Temporal effects in simultaneous pure-tone masking: effects of signal frequency, masker/signal frequency ratio, and masker level. Hearing Research 23(3): 257-266, 1986

Potential cues for the level discrimination of a noise band in the presence of flanking bands. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 145(5): El442-El448, 2019

Within-channel cues to comodulation masking release for single and symmetrically placed pairs of flanking bands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128(5): 2988-2997, 2010