The role of suppression in psychophysical tone-on-tone masking

Rodríguez, Joyce; Neely, Stephen T.; Patra, Harisadhan; Kopun, Judy G.; Jesteadt, Walt; Tan, Hongyang; Gorga, Michael P.

doi:10.1121/1.3257224

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(63 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12, Table 3). This finding is consistent with other evidence that suppression plays an important role in simultaneous masking (Pickles 1984;Delgutte 1990b;Gifford and Bacon 2000;Rodriguez et al 2010). Good agreement was found between PTCs (10 dB SL) and SFOAE STCs recorded at 20 dB SL for both probe frequencies, but at 30 dB SL there was a tendency for slightly larger error values (Table 3).…”

Section: The Shape Of Sfoae Stcs and Phase Effects-implications For Ssupporting

confidence: 82%

“…It is a matter of debate which behavioral paradigm is the best approach for assessing cochlear frequency selectivity (e.g., Houtgast 1972;Pickles 1979;Evans 2001;Oxenham and Shera 2003;Ruggero and Temchin 2005). In the simultaneous masking paradigm, both spread of excitation and suppression effects are believed to contribute to the observed masking (Pickles 1984;Delgutte 1990b;Gifford and Bacon 2000;Rodriguez et al 2010). The contribution of suppression may result in underestimation of cochlear frequency selectivity measured directly with neural or basilar membrane single-tone tuning curves (Sachs and Kiang 1968;Sellick and Russell 1979;Rhode 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Suppression Tuning in Humans: Comparison to Behavioral Tuning

Charaziak

Souza

Siegel

2013

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As shown by the work of Kemp and Chum in 1980, stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission suppression tuning curves (SFOAE STCs) have potential to objectively estimate behaviorally measured tuning curves. To date, this potential has not been tested. This study aims to do so by comparing SFOAE STCs and behavioral measures of tuning (simultaneous masking psychophysical tuning curves, PTCs) in 10 normal-hearing listeners for frequency ranges centered around 1,000 and 4,000 Hz at low probe levels. Additionally, SFOAE STCs were collected for varying conditions (probe level and suppression criterion) to identify the optimal parameters for comparison with behavioral data and to evaluate how these conditions affect the features of SFOAE STCs. SFOAE STCs qualitatively resembled PTCs: they demonstrated band-pass characteristics and asymmetric shapes with steeper high-frequency sides than low, but unlike PTCs they were consistently tuned to frequencies just above the probe frequency. When averaged across subjects the shapes of SFOAE STCs and PTCs showed agreement for most recording conditions, suggesting that PTCs are predominantly shaped by the frequency-selective filtering and suppressive effects of the cochlea. Individual SFOAE STCs often demonstrated irregular shapes (e.g., "double-tips"), particularly for the 1,000-Hz probe, which were not observed for the same subject's PTC. These results show the limited utility of SFOAE STCs to assess tuning in an individual.The irregularly shaped SFOAE STCs may be attributed to contributions from SFOAE sources distributed over a region of the basilar membrane extending beyond the probe characteristic place, as suggested by a repeatable pattern of SFOAE residual phase shifts observed in individual data.

show abstract

Section: The Shape Of Sfoae Stcs and Phase Effects-implications For Ssupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Suppression Tuning in Humans: Comparison to Behavioral Tuning

Charaziak

Souza

Siegel

2013

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the DP I/O function in Fig. 9͑A͒ is similar to experimental data at L 2 = 20-50 dB SPL ͑Johnson et al, 2006;Long et al, 2009;Rodríguez et al, 2010͒. While discrepancy of the absolute levels of DPOAE could be partially explained by transmission through the middle ear ͑see discussion in Appendix A͒, discrepancy in the DP growth rate at high L 2 indicates that the nonlinearity in the present model is not sufficiently compressive.…”

Section: B Cochlear Nonlinearitiessupporting

confidence: 60%

Distortion product emissions from a cochlear model with nonlinear mechanoelectrical transduction in outer hair cells

Liu

Neely

2010

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model of cochlear mechanics is described in which force-producing outer hair cells ͑OHC͒ are embedded in a passive cochlear partition. The OHC mechanoelectrical transduction current is nonlinearly modulated by reticular-lamina ͑RL͒ motion, and the resulting change in OHC membrane voltage produces contraction between the RL and the basilar membrane ͑BM͒. Model parameters were chosen to produce a tonotopic map typical of a human cochlea. Time-domain simulations showed compressive BM displacement responses typical of mammalian cochleae. Distortion product ͑DP͒ otoacoustic emissions at 2f 1 − f 2 are plotted as isolevel contours against primary levels ͑L 1 , L 2 ͒ for various primary frequencies f 1 and f 2 ͑f 1 Ͻ f 2 ͒. The L 1 at which the DP reaches its maximum level increases as L 2 increases, and the slope of the "optimal" linear path decreases as f 2 / f 1 increases. When primary levels and f 2 are fixed, DP level is band passed against f 1 . In the presence of a suppressor, DP level generally decreases as suppressor level increases and as suppressor frequency gets closer to f 2 ; however, there are exceptions. These results, being similar to data from human ears, suggest that the model could be used for testing hypotheses regarding DP generation and propagation in human cochleae.

show abstract

“…Previous investigators have compared OAEs with behavioral measures of CTs, auditory sensitivity, frequency selectivity, gap detection, psychophysical tuning curves, intensity discrimination, overshoot, and other psychoacoustical measures, with varying degrees of success (e.g., see Wilson, 1980;Shannon and Houtgast, 1980;Long and Tubis, 1988;Zwicker and Harris, 1990;McFadden and Mishra, 1993;Collett, 1994, 1996;Micheyl et al, 1997;McFadden and Pasanen, 1994;Probst and Harris, 1996;Neumann et al, 1997;Smurzynski et al, 1999;Smurzynski et al, 2001;Furst et al, 1988;Shera et al, 2002;Purcell et al, 2007;Keefe et al, 2009;Goodman et al, 2009;McFadden et al, 2010b;Walsh et al, 2010;Rodriguez et al, 2010). Additional attempts are inevitable and desirable because comparisons of this sort carry considerable potential to illuminate which aspects of auditory perception are attributable to mechanisms operating in the cochlea and which to later, neural mechanisms.…”

Section: B Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing behavioral and physiological measures of combination tones: Sex and race differences

McFadden

Pasanen

Leshikar

et al. 2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) and performance in an auditory-masking task involving combination tones were measured in the same frequency region in the same ears. In the behavioral task, a signal of 3.6 kHz (duration 300 ms, rise/fall time 20 ms) was masked by a 3.0-kHz tone (62 dB SPL, continuously presented). These two frequencies can produce a combination tone at 2.4 kHz. When a narrowband noise (2.0-2.8 kHz, 17 dB spectrum level) was added as a second masker, detection of the 3.6-kHz signal worsened by 6-9 dB (the Greenwood effect), revealing that listeners had been using the combination tone at 2.4 kHz as a cue for detection at 3.6 kHz. Several outcomes differed markedly by sex and racial background. The Greenwood effect was substantially larger in females than in males, but only for the White group. When the magnitude of the Greenwood effect was compared with the magnitude of the DPOAE measured in the 2.4 kHz region, the correlations typically were modest, but were high for Non-White males. For many subjects, then, most of the DPOAE measured in the ear canal apparently is not related to the combination-tone cue that is masked by the narrowband noise.

show abstract

The role of suppression in psychophysical tone-on-tone masking

Cited by 8 publications

References 54 publications

Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Suppression Tuning in Humans: Comparison to Behavioral Tuning

Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Suppression Tuning in Humans: Comparison to Behavioral Tuning

Distortion product emissions from a cochlear model with nonlinear mechanoelectrical transduction in outer hair cells

Comparing behavioral and physiological measures of combination tones: Sex and race differences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About