The role of frequency selectivity in measures of auditory and vibrotactile temporal resolution

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the role of frequency selectivity in measures of auditory and vibrotactile temporal resolution. In the first experiment, temporal modulation transfer functions for a sinusoidally amplitude modulated (SAM) 250-Hz carrier revealed auditory modulation thresholds significantly lower than corresponding vibrotactile modulation thresholds at SAM frequencies greater than or equal to 100 Hz. In the second experiment, auditory and vibrotactile gap detection thresholds were measured by presenting silent gaps bounded by markers of the same or different frequency. The marker frequency F1 = 250 Hz preceded the silent gap and marker frequencies after the silent gap included F2 = 250, 255, 263, 310, and 325 Hz. Auditory gap detection thresholds were lower than corresponding vibrotactile thresholds for F2 markers less than or equal to 263 Hz, but were greater than the corresponding vibrotactile gap detection thresholds for F2 markers greater than or equal to 310 Hz. When the auditory gap detection thresholds were transformed into filter attenuation values, the results were modeled well by a constant-percentage (10%) bandwidth filter centered on F1. The vibrotactile gap detection thresholds, however, were independent of marker frequency separation. In a third experiment, auditory and vibrotactile rate difference limens (RDLs) were measured for a 250-Hz carrier at SAM rates less than or equal to 100 Hz. Auditory RDLs were lower than corresponding vibrotactile RDLs for standard rates greater than 10 Hz. Combination tones may have confounded auditory performance for standard rates of 80 and 100 Hz. The results from these experiments revealed that frequency selectivity influences auditory measures of temporal resolution, but there was no evidence of frequency selectivity affecting vibrotactile temporal resolution.

Auditory and tactile gap discrimination by observers with normal and impaired hearing

“…The data of Formby et al (1992Formby et al ( , 1998 for monaural 250-Hz conditions indicate an increase in the GDT from roughly 7 ms for their 250-250 Hz condition to roughly 25-30 ms for their 250-375 Hz condition, consistent with our young NH results shown in Fig. 1.…”

“…The AGDDTs obtained for young NH listeners were consistent with those reported by Formby et al (1992Formby et al ( , 1998 using a 250-Hz leading marker and trailing markers in the range of 250 to 500 Hz. The data of Formby et al (1992Formby et al ( , 1998 for monaural 250-Hz conditions indicate an increase in the GDT from roughly 7 ms for their 250-250 Hz condition to roughly 25-30 ms for their 250-375 Hz condition, consistent with our young NH results shown in Fig.…”

“…The mean TGDDT for the samefrequency conditions was roughly 20 ms compared to 40 ms for the two different-frequency conditions. This pattern of results differs from that reported by Formby et al (1992) who found no spectral-disparity effect for vibrotactile stimulation. Their GDT remained constant at roughly 30 ms across conditions with a 250-Hz leading marker and trailing markers ranging from 250 to 375 Hz.…”

“…Thus, a comparison of the spectral-disparity effects within audition and touch will provide some insight into the spectral processing and filtering within each of these senses. Formby et al (1992) investigated auditory and vibrotactile gap-detection ability using a leading marker of 250 Hz and trailing markers in the range of 250-375 Hz. Tactile gap-detection thresholds were independent of trailingmarker frequency and averaged roughly 35 ms across conditions.…”

Vibrotactile intensity and frequency information in the Pacinian system: A psychophysical model

“…However, despite the abundance of studies on this sensory channel, few have investigated its ability to convey information about nonsinusoidal waveforms (see Bensmaïa & Hollins, 2000;Formby, Morgan, Forrest, & Raney, 1992;Horch, 1991;Lamoré, Muijser, & Keemink, 1986;Morley, Archer, Ferrington, Rowe, & Turman, 1990;Weisenberger, 1986). In a previous study (Bensmaïa & Hollins, 2000), we found that subjects could not use Pacinian signals to discriminate between diharmonic stimuli that differed only in the phase angle of the high-frequency component with respect to the low-frequency component.…”