Interference in detection of interaural delay in a sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tone produced by a second, spectrally remote sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tone.
Interference in detection of interaural delay in a sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tone produced by a second, spectrally remote sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tone.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1121/1.413096
复制
发表时间：
1995-03
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
L. Heller;C. Trahiotis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Heller;C. Trahiotis
在存在第二个光谱上遥远的diotic SAM音调（称为干扰器）的情况下，测量高频正弦幅度调制（SAM）目标音调内对耳间时间延迟（ITD）的敏感性。在250 Hz下对目标和干扰器进行100%调制，并且每个目标和干扰器在77 dB SPL下呈现持续时间为250 ms。目标和干扰器的调制是同相或异相的。在第一个实验中，当目标SAM音调以4 kHz为中心时，干扰器以500 Hz、1 kHz或2 kHz为中心。阈值ITD大幅增加，在存在的干扰相比，当目标是孤立的。以500 Hz和1 kHz为中心的干扰器观察到的效果最大。在第二个实验中，当目标SAM音调以2 kHz为中心时，干扰者以500 Hz或4 kHz为中心。阈值ITDs增加的存在下，任何一个干扰，但最大的增加发生在存在的500赫兹SAM音。在第三个实验中，我们发现，连续呈现低频SAM音比同时呈现目标和目标的干扰要小。在所有三个实验中，干扰器产生的效果并不取决于它们是否与目标同相或异相调制。两者合计，数据反对的概念，干扰可能会导致从周边，单声道之间的相互作用的目标和干扰波形。
Sensitivity to interaural time delays (ITDs) within high-frequency sinusoidally amplitude-modulated (SAM) target tones was measured in the presence of a second, spectrally remote diotic SAM tone (termed an interferer). Targets and interferers were 100% modulated at 250 Hz and each was presented at 77 dB SPL for a duration of 250 ms. The modulations of targets and interferers were either in-phase or out-of-phase. In the first experiment, when the target SAM tone was centered at 4 kHz, interferers were centered at either 500 Hz, 1 kHz, or 2 kHz. Threshold ITDs were substantially increased in the presence of the interferers as compared to when the targets were presented in isolation. The greatest effects were observed with interferers centered at 500 Hz and 1 kHz. In the second experiment, when the target SAM tone was centered at 2 kHz, interferers were centered at either 500 Hz or 4 kHz. Threshold ITDs increased in the presence of either interferer, but the greatest increase occurred in the presence of the 500-Hz SAM tone. In the third experiment, it was found that presenting the low-frequency SAM tones continuously resulted in less interference than did presenting the interferers and targets coincidently. In all three experiments, the effects produced by the interferers did not depend upon whether they were modulated in-phase or out-of-phase with the target. Taken together, the data argue against the notion that the interference could result from a peripheral, monaural interaction between target and interferer waveforms.