“Binaural Frequency Selectivity” and CMR

Hall, Joseph W.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-2247-4_42

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, they suggested that an across-ear comparison of noise envelope may underlie part of the MLD. Hall (1986) supported this hypothesis, showing a small (2-7 dB) masking release for a binaural masking noise having interaurally uncorrelated fine structure, but correlated envelope. However, in a later study (Hall et al, 1988 ), we noted a difficulty with the hypothesis that an across-ear comparison of noise envelope might underlie part of the MLD.…”

Section: The Results Of the Cancellation Process [N(t) ] Will Have Thesupporting

confidence: 60%

Frequency resolution for diotic and dichotic listening conditions compared using the bandlimiting measure and a modified bandlimiting measure

Cokely

Hall

1991

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments were performed that examined the relation between frequency selectivity for diotic and dichotic stimuli. Subjects were eight normal-hearing listeners. In each experiment, a 500-Hz pure tone of 400-ms duration was presented in continuous noise. In the diotic listening conditions, a signal and noise were presented binaurally with no interaural differences (So and No, respectively). In the dichotic listening conditions, the signal or noise at one ear was 180 degrees out-of-phase relative to the respective stimulus at the other ear (S pi and N pi, respectively). The first experiment examined frequency selectivity using the bandlimiting measure. Here, signal thresholds were determined as a function of masker bandwidth (50, 100, 250, 500, and 1000 Hz) for SoNo, S pi No, and SoN pi listening conditions. The second experiment used a modified bandlimiting measure. Here, signal thresholds (So and S pi) were determined with a relatively narrow No band of masker energy (50 Hz wide) centered about the signal. Then, a second No narrow-band masker (30 Hz wide) was added at another frequency region, and signal thresholds were reestablished. The results of the two experiments indicated that listeners process a wider band of frequencies when resolving dichotic stimuli than when resolving diotic or monotic stimuli. The results also indicated that the bandlimiting measure may underestimate the spectral band processed upon dichotic stimulation. Results are interpreted in terms of an across-ear and across-frequency processing of waveform amplitude envelope.

show abstract

Section: The Results Of the Cancellation Process [N(t) ] Will Have Thesupporting

confidence: 60%

Frequency resolution for diotic and dichotic listening conditions compared using the bandlimiting measure and a modified bandlimiting measure

Cokely

Hall

1991

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One possible reason for the relatively large CMRs in the present study is that the noise bandwidth used in the present study (20 Hz) was narrower than in past studies. Data of Hall (1986) duced the CMR. This reduction was greatest for deviant pairs closest to the signal frequency.…”

Section: The Magnitude Of Cmr In the Present Study Was Somewhat Largementioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of flanking band proximity, number, and modulation pattern on comodulation masking release

Hall

Grose

Haggard

1990

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comodulation masking release for a 700-Hz pure-tone signal was investigated as a function of the number and spectral positions of 20-Hz-wide comodulated flanking bands. In the first experiment, all stimuli were presented diotically. CMR was examined as a function of the number of flanking bands present, in conditions where the bands were arranged symmetrically around the signal frequency, were below the signal frequency, or were above the signal frequency. The number of flanking bands ranged from one to eight, and the magnitude of the diotic CMR ranged from approximately 5-16 dB. The results indicated: (1) bands closer to the signal resulted in larger masking release, and (2) more bands gave rise to larger CMR (but with diminishing returns above two flanking bands). Two additional sets of diotic conditions were examined and compared to the condition where all eight comodulated flanking bands were present: In one set of conditions, two of the eight flanking bands were removed; in the other set of conditions, two of the eight flanking bands were replaced with bands (termed "deviant" bands) that were not comodulated with respect to the other bands. There was very little effect of reducing eight bands to six, even when the removed bands were relatively near the signal frequency; however, CMR was substantially reduced when deviant bands were introduced, particularly when the deviant bands were placed relatively near the signal frequency. These reductions in CMR were slightly greater when each of the deviant bands had a unique modulation pattern (bideviant bands) than when the two deviant bands themselves shared the same modulation pattern (codeviant bands). In the second experiment, dichotic conditions were examined where the number and spectral positions of the flanking bands in the nonsignal ear were varied (the signal ear received only a 20-Hz-wide noise band centered on the signal frequency). The magnitude of the dichotic CMR ranged from approximately 2-10 dB, depending on condition. Effects of proximity and the number of flanking bands were similar to the effects obtained in diotic conditions. For both the diotic and the dichotic data, the effects of proximity were more consistent with an interpretation based upon across-channel processing than upon a within-channel interaction. The results obtained using deviant bands indicate that it is difficult for the auditory system to disregard the modulation pattern of flanking bands that differ from the modulation pattern of the on-signal band, particularly if such bands are proximal to the signal frequency.

show abstract

“Binaural Frequency Selectivity” and CMR

Cited by 2 publications

References 15 publications

Frequency resolution for diotic and dichotic listening conditions compared using the bandlimiting measure and a modified bandlimiting measure

Frequency resolution for diotic and dichotic listening conditions compared using the bandlimiting measure and a modified bandlimiting measure

Effects of flanking band proximity, number, and modulation pattern on comodulation masking release

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About