Interference in detection of interaural delay in a sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tone produced by a second, spectrally remote sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tone

Heller, Laurie M.; Trahiotis, Constantine

doi:10.1121/1.413096

Cited by 28 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At echo delays of 16, 32, and 64 ms, the amount of interference observed for distractors below the frequency of the target in this study were quite similar to those reported by Heller and Trahiotis (1995) for SAM tones at different spectral locations. In both cases, interference effects are somewhere between a factor of 2 to 4, with greater interference found as the distractors were decreased in frequency in spite of the fact that the difference between the target and distractor was increased in magnitude.…”

Section: Low-frequency Dominancesupporting

confidence: 87%

“…When judgments were based on the source, S7 appeared to show considerably less interference when the echo delay was lengthened to 64 ms, while others showed as much or greater than was obtained with an echo delay of 32 ms. Substantial individual differences have been reported in studies of binaural interference, generally on the order of a factor of two (see Heller and Trahiotis, 1995;and Bernstein and Trahiotis, 1995). If one ignores the data obtained with an echo delay of 8 ms in the current study, we find approximately the same amount of interference and the same extent of individual differences.…”

Section: Low-frequency Dominancesupporting

confidence: 69%

“…The 4-kHz carrier, on the other hand, elevated threshold by less than a factor 2. Explanations of binaural interference typically involve some sort of obligatory non-optimal weighting of non-informative non-target components (Dye, 1990;Buell and Hafter, 1991;Woods and Colburn, 1992;Heller and Trahiotis, 1995). By the same token, we have argued that precedence and (especially) recency effects might be due to inappropriate weight given to the distractor pulse, at least for tasks in which responses are to be based on either the first or second pulse.…”

Section: Low-frequency Dominancementioning

confidence: 89%

“…Yang and Grantham (1997) were the first to note this similarity. For instance, Heller and Trahiotis (1995) measured sensitivity to ITDs carried by 100% SAM carriers at 2 kHz in the presence of diotic interferers that were centered at 500 or 4000 Hz. All carriers were modulated at 250 Hz.…”

Section: Low-frequency Dominancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Lateralization of simulated sources and echoes differing in frequency based on interaural temporal differences

Dye

Boomer

Frankel

et al. 2016

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined listeners' ability to process interaural temporal differences (ITDs) in one of two sequential sounds when the two differed in spectral content. A correlational analysis assessed weights given to ITDs of simulated source and echo pulses for echo delays of 8–128 ms for conditions in which responses were based on the source or echo, a 3000-Hz Gaussian (target) pulse. The other (distractor) pulse was spectrally centered at 1500, 2000, 3000, 4000, or 5000 Hz. Also measured were proportion correct and proportion of responses predicted from the weights. Regardless of whether the echo or source pulse served as the target, target weight, and proportion correct increased with increasing distractor frequency, consistent with low-frequency dominance [Divenyi, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91, 1078–1084 (1992)]. Effects of distractor frequency were observed at echo delays out to 128 ms when the source served as the target, but only out to 64 ms when the echo served as the target. At echo delays beyond 8 ms, recency effects were exhibited with higher proportions correct obtained for judgments based on the echo pulse than the source pulse.

show abstract

Section: Low-frequency Dominancesupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Low-frequency Dominancesupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Low-frequency Dominancementioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Low-frequency Dominancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lateralization of simulated sources and echoes differing in frequency based on interaural temporal differences

Dye

Boomer

Frankel

et al. 2016

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Qualitatively, the dominance of low-frequency stimuli in the precedence effect is similar to the low-frequency dominance that has been observed in binaural interference (Heller & Trahiotis, 1995;McFadden & Pasanen, 1976;Yang & Grantham, 1997;Zurek, 1985). In each case, spectral dominance may arise from the greater localization strength of lower frequency signals.…”

Section: The Suppression Model Is Inconsistent With Theories Of Relatmentioning

confidence: 52%

Reconsidering evidence for the suppression model of the octave illusion

Chambers

Mattingley

Moss

2004

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The octave illusion is a compelling perceptual phenomenon that arises when each ear is presented with an alternating sequence of tones separated by one octave, but with the high-and the low-frequency tones in different ears (Figure 1). The majority of listeners are unable to accurately describe these stimuli and, instead, report a high pitch in one ear alternating with a low pitch in the opposite ear. Deutsch (1974) noted that, when presented with these stimuli via headphones, most listeners heard the higher pitch toward the right and the lower pitch toward the left. This trend was particularly salient for righthanded listeners, but not for left-handed listeners. Deutsch (1974) suggested that this handedness effect indexed the lateralization of the higher pitch "toward the side producing the most effective input to the dominant hemisphere" (p. 308).The unique and influential suppression model of this phenomenon was later proposed by Deutsch and Roll (1976). From an analysis of subjective reports, the authors suggested that the octave illusion arises from a high-frequency dominance for sound localization, combined with ear dominance for pitch in which the dominant ear "exercises a steady suppression on the other [ear], so that only the frequencies arriving at one ear are heard" (p. 24). According to this theory, the interplay of ear dominance for pitch and high-frequency dominance for localization results in conflict when the high-frequency tone is presented to the nondominant ear. Under this condition, Deutsch and Roll suggested that listeners perceive the pitch presented to their dominant ear but localize this percept in the opposite ear. The authors thus concluded that the octave illusion reveals separate neural mechanisms governing the what and where of auditory perception, which may be placed in conflict under appropriate conditions. Deutsch (1978, 1980a, 1988) later included a third tenet to the suppression model, suggesting that this unique division of object-and location-based auditory mechanisms was facilitated by sequential interactions between the tones-specifically, the repeated alternation of the same frequencies between the ears.A recent study by Chambers, Mattingley, and Moss (2002) has challenged the validity of the suppression model. From a psychophysical investigation, their results suggest instead that (1) the pitch variation during the octave illusion may arise from established mechanisms of harmonic fusion, (2) the high-frequency dominance for localization proposed by the suppression model regularly fails to emerge, and (3) both the pitch differences between alternate dichotic octaves 1 and the apparent lateralization of single dichotic octaves can occur indepen- The octave illusion is elicited by a sequence of tones presented to each ear that continuously alternate in frequency by one octave, but with high and low frequencies always in different ears. The percept for most listeners is a high pitch in one ear, alternating with a low pitch in the other ear. The influential suppression model o...

show abstract

Interaural Time Processing When Stimulus Bandwidth Differs at the Two Ears

Brown

Yost

2013

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in the design of cochlear implants (CIs), as well as improved CI surgical techniques, have led to an increase in the number of patients who retain some residual low-frequency acoustic hearing in the implanted ear. Many of these patients also possess some hearing in the unimplanted ear. Although their low-frequency audiometric configurations will likely be asymmetrical across ears, they may nevertheless be able to process interaural time differences (ITDs) which might aid them in localizing sound sources and achieving a spatial release from masking. We recently published research (Brown and Yost 2011) showing how sensitivity to ITD differences was affected when the stimulus bandwidths were varied between the ears, to simulate asymmetrical hearing loss in the low-frequency region. We showed that ITD discrimination thresholds decreased as the bandwidth of the noise presented to one ear increased beyond that presented to the other ear. In the current experiment, we expand upon those conditions to further explore ITD processing in the presence of interaural spectral differences. ITD sensitivity was measured when a fixed band of noise was presented to one ear and the center frequency of a spectral band of the same width was moved upward in frequency in the other ear. The data suggest that listeners have difficulty attending to ITD differences in one spectral region when there are other spectral regions that contain conflicting or inconsistent spatial information, which is likely to be the case for many CI patients who possess bilateral residual hearing.

show abstract

Interference in detection of interaural delay in a sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tone produced by a second, spectrally remote sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tone

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Lateralization of simulated sources and echoes differing in frequency based on interaural temporal differences

Lateralization of simulated sources and echoes differing in frequency based on interaural temporal differences

Reconsidering evidence for the suppression model of the octave illusion

Interaural Time Processing When Stimulus Bandwidth Differs at the Two Ears

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About