Estimation of Frequency Resolving Power of Human Hearing by Different Methods: Roles of Sensory and Cognitive Factors

Milekhina, Olga N.; Nechaev, Dmitry; Supin, Alexander Ya.

doi:10.1134/s036211971803009x

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The difference between the results obtained with phasevarying and constant-phase test stimuli obtained in this study did not reach statistical significance; however, it could be considered to be a tendency. A similar difference (statistically significant) was described previously, and it has been hypothesized that the difference between the two test stimulus types appeared due to a greater involvement of cognitive processes (short-term memory) in the case of the constant-phase test stimuli (Milekhina et al, 2018). With the phase-varying test stimuli, phase changes could be detected directly as transients between segments with opposite ripple phases, whereas with the constant-phase test stimulus, a current stimulus (test or reference) is compared with a stimulus presented several seconds earlier, which requires the participation of short-term memory.…”

Section: Comparison Of Phase-varying and Constant-phase Test Stimulisupporting

confidence: 84%

“…The test stimuli with constant ripple phases (see Figure 1(b)) in conjunction with rippled reference stimuli with ripple phase opposite to the test (see Figure 1(c)) resulted in a somewhat lower resolution of 7.7 ripples/oct, which is close to that obtained by Milekhina et al (2018). Interindividual standard deviations for these estimates were 0.6 and 1.4 ripples/oct, respectively.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 60%

“…The difference in 1.2 ripples/oct between these two estimates was not statistically significant (t ¼ 1.83, df ¼ 7, p ¼ .11 by paired t test) which may be a result of the small group of listeners. In another study (Milekhina et al, 2018), the similar difference was statistically significant.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…Many investigations referred earlier were performed on different categories of listeners: normal, with various degrees of HL, or with various parameters of cochlear implants. For example, in normal-hearing listeners, with the use of phase-varying test stimuli and rippled reference stimuli, the rippledensity resolution was estimated, depending on the frequency, from 8.1 to 10.6 ripples/oct (Supin et al, 1998), from 5.2 to 10.0 ripples/oct (Supin et al, 1999), and from 8.7 to 9.8 ripples/oct (Milekhina et al, 2018); with constant-phase test stimuli, the estimates were from 2.03 to 7.55 ripples/oct within a wide (0.1-5 kHz) frequency band (Henry et al, 2005) or from 6.2 to 7.8 ripples/oct within a 3-oct band (Milekhina et al, 2018). The data obtained in hearing-impaired listeners or cochlear implant users vary extremely widely because of various hearing abilities of the subjects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Estimates of Ripple-Density Resolution Based on the Discrimination From Rippled and Nonrippled Reference Signals

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rippled-spectrum stimuli are used to evaluate the resolution of the spectro-temporal structure of sounds. Measurements of spectrum-pattern resolution imply the discrimination between the test and reference stimuli. Therefore, estimates of rippled-pattern resolution could depend on both the test stimulus and the reference stimulus type. In this study, the ripple-density resolution was measured using combinations of two test stimuli and two reference stimuli. The test stimuli were rippled-spectrum signals with constant phase or rippled-spectrum signals with ripple-phase reversals. The reference stimuli were rippled-spectrum signals with opposite ripple phase to the test or nonrippled signals. The spectra were centered at 2 kHz and had an equivalent rectangular bandwidth of 1 oct and a level of 70 dB sound pressure level. A three-alternative forced-choice procedure was combined with an adaptive procedure. With rippled reference stimuli, the mean ripple-density resolution limits were 8.9 ripples/oct (phase-reversals test stimulus) or 7.7 ripples/oct (constant-phase test stimulus). With nonrippled reference stimuli, the mean resolution limits were 26.1 ripples/oct (phase-reversals test stimulus) or 22.2 ripples/ oct (constant-phase test stimulus). Different contributions of excitation-pattern and temporal-processing mechanisms are assumed for measurements with rippled and nonrippled reference stimuli: The excitation-pattern mechanism is more effective for the discrimination of rippled stimuli that differ in their ripple-phase patterns, whereas the temporal-processing mechanism is more effective for the discrimination of rippled and nonrippled stimuli.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Phase-varying and Constant-phase Test Stimulisupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Estimates of Ripple-Density Resolution Based on the Discrimination From Rippled and Nonrippled Reference Signals

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For test signals with periodic ripple phase reversals, the ripple-density resolution was found to be 14.9 dimensionless units (a ratio of ripple center frequency to ripple frequency spacing) that corresponded to 10.6 ripples/oct ( Supin et al., 1998 ). For test signals with constant ripple phases, the ripple-density resolution was slightly lower, approximately 8 ripples/oct ( Milekhina et al., 2018 ).…”

Section: Dependence Of Ripple-density Resolution On Stimulus Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

High Ripple-Density Resolution for Discriminating Between Rippled and Nonrippled Signals: Effect of Temporal Processing or Combination Products?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of the study was to investigate the role of combination products in the higher ripple-density resolution estimates obtained by discrimination between a spectrally rippled and a nonrippled noise signal than that obtained by discrimination between two rippled signals. To attain this goal, a noise band was used to mask the frequency band of expected low-frequency combination products. A three-alternative forced-choice procedure with adaptive ripple-density variation was used. The mean background (unmasked) ripple-density resolution was 9.8 ripples/oct for rippled reference signals and 21.8 ripples/oct for nonrippled reference signals. Low-frequency maskers reduced the ripple-density resolution. For masker levels from −10 to 10 dB re. signal, the ripple-density resolution for nonrippled reference signals was approximately twice as high as that for rippled reference signals. At a masker level as high as 20 dB re. signal, the ripple-density resolution decreased in both discrimination tasks. This result leads to the conclusion that low-frequency combination products are not responsible for the task-dependent difference in ripple-density resolution estimates.

show abstract

Discrimination of Sound Signals with Rippled Spectra in the Presence of Additional Signals

Tomozova

Nechaev

Milekhina

et al. 2022

Neurosci Behav Physi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimation of Frequency Resolving Power of Human Hearing by Different Methods: Roles of Sensory and Cognitive Factors

Cited by 11 publications

References 15 publications

Estimates of Ripple-Density Resolution Based on the Discrimination From Rippled and Nonrippled Reference Signals

Estimates of Ripple-Density Resolution Based on the Discrimination From Rippled and Nonrippled Reference Signals

High Ripple-Density Resolution for Discriminating Between Rippled and Nonrippled Signals: Effect of Temporal Processing or Combination Products?

Discrimination of Sound Signals with Rippled Spectra in the Presence of Additional Signals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About