Estimation of cochlear response times using lateralization of frequency-mismatched tones

Strelcyk, Olaf; Dau, Torsten

doi:10.1121/1.3192220

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conditions with a JND higher than 1000 μs were removed, as the precision of the estimate of D depends on the JND in ITD. D significantly decreased with increasing acoustic center frequency (mixed model with a random effect of subject, d f = 31 ,t = 3.90 , p < 0.01), with differences between lowest and highest center frequencies in the order of 3 ms, which is plausible according to the literature on acoustic traveling wave delays (e.g., Strelcyk and Dau, 2009; Ruggero and Temchin, 2007). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 56%

Interaural Time Difference Perception with a Cochlear Implant and a Normal Ear

Francart

Wiebe

Wesarg

2018

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently there is a growing population of cochlear-implant (CI) users with (near) normal hearing in the non-implanted ear. This configuration is often called SSD (single-sided deafness) CI. The goal of the CI is often to improve spatial perception, so the question raises to what extent SSD CI listeners are sensitive to interaural time differences (ITDs). In a controlled lab setup, sensitivity to ITDs was investigated in eleven SSD CI listeners. The stimuli were 100-pps pulse trains on the CI side and band-limited click trains on the acoustic side. After determining level balance and the delay needed to achieve synchronous stimulation of the two ears, the just noticeable difference in ITD was measured using an adaptive procedure. Seven out of eleven listeners were sensitive to ITDs, with a median just noticeable difference of 438 μs. Out of the four listeners who were not sensitive to ITD, one listener reported binaural fusion,and three listeners reported no binaural fusion. To enable ITD sensitivity, a frequency-dependent delay of the electrical stimulus was required to synchronise the electric and acoustic signals at the level of the auditory nerve. Using subjective fusion measures and refined by ITD sensitivity, it was possible to match a CI electrode to an acoustic frequency range. This shows the feasibility of these measures for the allocation of acoustic frequency ranges to electrodes when fitting a CI to a subject with (near) normal hearing in the contralateral ear.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 56%

Interaural Time Difference Perception with a Cochlear Implant and a Normal Ear

Francart

Wiebe

Wesarg

2018

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There could be several reasons for this finding. One is that an additional ITD besides the one in the waveform delay could be imposed upon the neural coding of the signal because of the difference in the cochlear traveling wave path lengths (Shamma et al, 1989;Strelcyk and Dau, 2009). Another is that since the temporal shape of the pulses changed for different carrier frequencies, the signal with the sharper attack imposed an additional ITD to the higher-frequency carrier (see Fig.…”

Section: A Experimental Findingsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effect of mismatched place-of-stimulation on the salience of binaural cues in conditions that simulate bilateral cochlear-implant listening

Goupell¹,

Stoelb²,

Kan³

et al. 2013

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

102

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although bilateral cochlear implantation has the potential to improve sound localization and speech understanding in noise, obstacles exist in presenting maximally useful binaural information to bilateral cochlear-implant (CI) users. One obstacle is that electrode arrays may differ in cochlear position by several millimeters, thereby stimulating different neural populations. Effects of interaural frequency mismatch on binaural processing were studied in normal-hearing (NH) listeners using band-limited pulse trains, thereby avoiding confounding factors that may occur in CI users. In experiment 1, binaural image fusion was measured to capture perceptual number, location, and compactness. Subjects heard a single, compact image on 73% of the trials. In experiment 2, intracranial image location was measured for different interaural time differences (ITDs) and interaural level differences (ILDs). For larger mismatch, locations perceptually shifted towards the ear with the higher carrier frequency. In experiment 3, ITD and ILD just-noticeable differences (JNDs) were measured. JNDs increased with decreasing bandwidth and increasing mismatch, but were always measurable up to 3 mm of mismatch. If binaural-hearing mechanisms are similar between NH and CI subjects, these results may explain reduced sensitivity of ITDs and ILDs in CI users. Large mismatches may lead to distorted spatial maps and reduced binaural image fusion.

show abstract

“…Studies of asynchrony detection (Hirsh and Sherrick, 1961;Parker, 1988;Zera and Green, 1993b;Mossbridge et al, 2006Mossbridge et al, , 2008Micheyl et al, 2010) or temporal-order discrimination (Hirsh, 1959;Hirsh and Sherrick, 1961;Wier and Green, 1975;Pastore et al, 1982;Kelly and Watson, 1986;Mossbridge et al, 2006;Micheyl et al, 2010) might be useful in determining possible perceptual effects of the frequency-dependent cochlear delays but, as in the Strelcyk and Dau (2009) study, within-channel cues were potentially available to the listeners because of the relatively close frequency spacing used, or because of potentially overlapping spectral information due to splatter caused by very rapid onset/offset ramps. To our knowledge, no data reflecting the perception of solely across-channel timing differences are available to test the hypothesis that a higher-level mechanism compensates for BM across-channel delays to provide veridical perception.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These differences in response duration are due to the phase responses of the individual cochlear filters (e.g., Kohlrausch and Sander, 1995;Oxenham and Dau, 2001a,b), and so the results of Uppenkamp et al (2001) may provide information about within-filter phase responses, rather than across-filter differences in group delay. Strelcyk and Dau (2009) used another approach to measure effective cochlear delays behaviorally. They presented two tones of nearby frequencies (10%-20% apart), with one tone presented to each ear, and measured the interaural time difference (ITD) necessary for the tones to be lateralized to the center of the head.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception of across-frequency asynchrony and the role of cochlear delays

Wojtczak

Beim

Micheyl

et al. 2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear filtering results in earlier responses to high than to low frequencies. This study examined potential perceptual correlates of cochlear delays by measuring the perception of relative timing between tones of different frequencies. A brief 250-Hz tone was combined with a brief 1-, 2-, 4-, or 6-kHz tone. Two experiments were performed, one involving subjective judgments of perceived synchrony, the other involving asynchrony detection and discrimination. The functions relating the proportion of "synchronous" responses to the delay between the tones were similar for all tone pairs. Perceived synchrony was maximal when the tones in a pair were gated synchronously. The perceived-synchrony function slopes were asymmetric, being steeper on the low-frequency-leading side. In the second experiment, asynchrony-detection thresholds were lower for low-frequency rather than for high-frequency leading pairs. In contrast with previous studies, but consistent with the first experiment, thresholds did not depend on frequency separation between the tones, perhaps because of the elimination of within-channel cues. The results of the two experiments were related quantitatively using a decision-theoretic model, and were found to be highly correlated. Overall the results suggest that frequency-dependent cochlear group delays are compensated for at higher processing stages, resulting in veridical perception of timing relationships across frequency.

show abstract

Estimation of cochlear response times using lateralization of frequency-mismatched tones

Cited by 7 publications

References 44 publications

Interaural Time Difference Perception with a Cochlear Implant and a Normal Ear

Interaural Time Difference Perception with a Cochlear Implant and a Normal Ear

Effect of mismatched place-of-stimulation on the salience of binaural cues in conditions that simulate bilateral cochlear-implant listening

Perception of across-frequency asynchrony and the role of cochlear delays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About