An evaluation of models for diotic and dichotic detection in reproducible noises

Abstract

Several psychophysical models for masked detection were evaluated using reproducible noises. The data were hit and false-alarm rates from three psychophysical studies of detection of 500-Hz tones in reproducible noise under diotic ͑N 0 S 0 ͒ and dichotic ͑N 0 S ͒ conditions with four stimulus bandwidths ͑50, 100, 115, and 2900 Hz͒. Diotic data were best predicted by an energy-based multiple-detector model that linearly combined stimulus energies at the outputs of several critical-band filters. The tone-plus-noise trials in the dichotic data were best predicted by models that linearly combined either the average values or the standard deviations of interaural time and level differences; however, these models offered no predictions for noise-alone responses. The decision variables of more complicated temporal models, including the models of Dau et al. ͓͑1996a͒. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99, 3615-3622͔ and Breebaart et al. ͓͑2001a͒. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 1074-1088͔, were weakly correlated with subjects' responses. Comparisons of the dependencies of each model on envelope and fine-structure cues to those in the data suggested that dependence upon both envelope and fine structure, as well as an interaction between them, is required to predict the detection results.

Binaural detection with narrowband and wideband reproducible noise maskers. IV. Models using interaural time, level, and envelope differences

“…More recently, Goupell and Hartmann (2007) proposed "independent-center" and "auditory-image" models that linearly combined ILDs and ITDs to predict listeners' performance for interaural correlation detection; the difference between these two models was the sequence of combining ILD and ITD information and integrating across time. Predictions from Goupell and Hartmann's models were significantly correlated with detection patterns for about half of the listeners (Davidson et al, 2009a). However, Davidson et al (2009a) found by examining data from each listener that either ILDs or ITDs dominated in Goupell and Hartmann's linear combinations, suggesting that instead of combining ILDs and ITDs, in fact only the better of the two cues was used by the models.…”

“…Predictions from Goupell and Hartmann's models were significantly correlated with detection patterns for about half of the listeners (Davidson et al, 2009a). However, Davidson et al (2009a) found by examining data from each listener that either ILDs or ITDs dominated in Goupell and Hartmann's linear combinations, suggesting that instead of combining ILDs and ITDs, in fact only the better of the two cues was used by the models.…”

“…The DV from the M b model could be interpreted as the proportion of stimulus duration during which the instantaneous ITD magnitude exceeds a certain threshold b. Although some of these ILD-or ITD-based models could predict a significant amount of the variance in a few listeners' detection patterns, none of these models worked for all listeners (Isabelle, 1995;Davidson et al, 2009a).…”

“…Electronic mail: laurel.carney@rochester.edu different models have been tested to predict detection patterns (Isabelle and Colburn, 1987;Isabelle, 1995;Goupell and Hartmann, 2007;Davidson et al, 2009a). For each model, a set of decision variables (DVs), each derived from a specific feature or combination of features of the waveforms, is compared with the detection patterns.…”

The role of envelope statistics in detecting changes in interaural correlation

“…The fluctuations in the ILD, s t ðDLÞ, were calculated similarly by using the ILDs in the instantaneous envelope of the analytic signal. These two statistics have been used in several studies to account for binaural detection sensitivity (e.g., Goupell and Hartmann, 2007;Davidson et al, 2009;van der Heijden and Joris, 2009). …”