The effects of marker-related temporal cues on auditory gap-duration discrimination

Abstract

In three experiments, we examined the ability of listeners to discriminate the duration of temporal gaps (silent intervals) and the influence of other temporal stimulus properties on their performance. In the first experiment, gapduration discrimination thresholds were measured either in continuous noise or with noise markers with durations of 3 and 300 ms. Thresholds measured with 300-ms markers differed from those measured in continuous noise or with 3-ms markers. In the second experiment, stimuli consisting of a gap between two discrete markers were generated such that the gap duration, the onset-to-onset duration between markers, and the duration of the first marker were pseudorandomized across trials. Listeners' responses generally were consistent with the cue that was identified as the target cue from among the three cues in each block of trials, but the data suggested that the onset-to-onset cue was particularly salient in all conditions. Using a modified method-ofadjustment procedure in the third experiment, subjects were instructed to discriminate between the durations of gaps in discrete markers of different durations in two intervals, where the gap duration in one interval was adapted to measure the point of subjective equality. Without feedback, listeners tended to equate the onset-to-onset times of the markers rather than the gap durations. Overall, the results indicated that listeners' judgments of silent gaps between two discrete markers are strongly influenced by the onset-toonset time, or rhythm, of the markers.

Retention of Gap Length in Normal-Hearing Listeners

“…Individual and group mean data across four runs per condition are depicted in figure 2. Gap-length JNDs following the 5000 ms retention interval approximated 26 ms. Abel (1972) and Stellmack et al (2013) reported comparable results for similar duration temporal markers even though procedures differed, and the retention interval was five-to-ten times larger in the present study. There was no significant difference in JND by condition (F 2, 10 = 2.72, p = 0.38) per a repeated-measures ANOVA with Geisser-Greenhouse adjustment.…”

“…Maintaining the resolution of time-based associations amongst auditory objects would allow listeners to establish coherent-cognitive representations of pertinent, ongoing events (Engle et al 1999). Establishing such time-based relationships between acoustic events involves retention and comparison of temporal markers (Abel 1972;Plomp 1964) with onset times between fixed-duration temporal markers being a robust indicator (Stellmack et al 2013). While this suggests possible use of rhythm cues, modeling indicates that temporal gaps themselves may provide useful information.…”

Comparison of Performance of Older Adults on Two Tests of Temporal Resolution

“…Many factors may have influenced the performance on the two tests, including the randomness of the gap, location of the gap, and the duration of the noise in which the gap was inserted. On the basis of the findings of Stellmack, Viemeister, Byrne, and Sheft (2013), it can be inferred that the randomness and location of the gaps probably resulted in the difference in performance between the two tests rather than the duration of the noise. Stellmack et al noted that gap-discrimination thresholds were better for a continuous noise having gaps interspersed at set intervals compared to noise markers having a duration of 300 ms with a gap in its center.…”