PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8865644

Modulation discrimination interference and comodulation masking release as a function of the number and spectral placement of narrow-band noise modulators.

Abstract

The discrimination of the depth of amplitude modulation (AM) of a target carrier can be adversely affected by the presence of other modulated carriers (flankers), an effect called modulation discrimination interference (MDI). Conversely, when the task is to detect a sinusoidal signal added to a modulated carrier of the same frequency, the presence of comodulated flankers (with the same modulation as the target carrier) can improve performance (comodulation masking release: CMR). This paper examines how CMR and MDI are influenced by the number and placement of the flankers. Flankers were spaced at 2-ERB intervals from the target, and their number was manipulated by adding flankers that were more remote from the target. Narrow-band noise (centered at 10 Hz) was used as the modulator for all carriers. In experiment 1, the MDI task required detection of a decrease in modulation depth (m) of the target from a reference value of 0.7. Unmodulated flankers did not affect thresholds. Modulated flankers (m = 0.15) produced MDI, which increased as more flankers were added. MDI was generally slightly greater for comodulated than for noncomodulated flankers. The CMR task required detection of a sinusoidal signal added (in 90 degrees phase) to the target carrier (m = 0.7). Unmodulated flankers or flankers that were noncomodulated with the target had no effect on threshold. Comodulated flankers (m = 0.7) gave CMR, which generally increased as more flankers were added. This effect was greater for flankers below the target frequency than for flankers above. Experiment 2 examined MDI using similar stimuli to experiment 1, except that the task was to detect an increase in m from a reference value of 0.1. Even unmodulated flankers elevated thresholds, and this effect increased as more flankers were added, especially on the high-frequency side of the target. Modulated flankers (m = 0.2) produced additional increases in threshold, and modulation thresholds generally increased as more flankers were added. However, the amount of MDI (the difference between thresholds with modulated and unmodulated flankers) did not vary systematically with the number of flankers and did not show consistent differences between comodulated and noncomodulated flankers. The results are interpreted in terms of the mechanisms underlying MDI and CMR, and especially perceptual grouping processes.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B C Moore, U Jorasz. 1996. Modulation discrimination interference and comodulation masking release as a function of the number and spectral placement of narrow-band noise modulators.. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.417947

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Hearing lips and seeing voices: how cortical areas supporting speech production mediate audiovisual speech perception.

Observing a speaker's mouth profoundly influences speech perception. For example, listeners perceive an "illusory" "ta" when the video of a face producing /ka/ is dubbed onto an audio /pa/. Here, we show how cortical areas supporting speech production mediate this illusory percept and audiovisual (AV) speech perception more generally. Specifically, cortical activity during AV speech perception occurs in many of the same areas that are active during speech production. We find that different perceptions of the same syllable and the perception of different syllables are associated with different distributions of activity in frontal motor areas involved in speech production. Activity patterns in these frontal motor areas resulting from the illusory "ta" percept are more similar to the activity patterns evoked by AV(/ta/) than they are to patterns evoked by AV(/pa/) or AV(/ka/). In contrast to the activity in frontal motor areas, stimulus-evoked activity for the illusory "ta" in auditory and somatosensory areas and visual areas initially resembles activity evoked by AV(/pa/) and AV(/ka/), respectively. Ultimately, though, activity in these regions comes to resemble activity evoked by AV(/ta/). Together, these results suggest that AV speech elicits in the listener a motor plan for the production of the phoneme that the speaker might have been attempting to produce, and that feedback in the form of efference copy from the motor system ultimately influences the phonetic interpretation.

Auditory Perception↗

Top-down processes during auditory phoneme categorization in dyslexia: a PET study.

While persistence of subtle phonological deficits in dyslexic adults is well documented, deficit of categorical perception of phonemes has received little attention so far. We studied learning of phoneme categorization during an activation H(2)O(15) PET experiment in 14 dyslexic adults and 16 normal readers with similar age, handedness and performance IQ. Dyslexic subjects exhibited typical, marked impairments in reading and phoneme awareness tasks. During the PET experiment, subjects performed a discrimination task involving sine wave analogues of speech first presented as pairs of electronic sounds and, after debriefing, as syllables /ba/ and /da/. Discrimination performance and brain activation were compared between the acoustic mode and the speech mode of the task which involved physically identical stimuli; signal changes in the speech mode relative to the acoustic mode revealed the neural counterparts of phonological top-down processes that are engaged after debriefing. Although dyslexic subjects showed good abilities to learn discriminating speech sounds, their performance remained lower than those of normal readers on the discrimination task over the whole experiment. Activation observed in the speech mode in normal readers showed a strongly left-lateralized pattern involving the superior temporal, inferior parietal and inferior lateral frontal cortex. Frontal and parietal subparts of these left-sided regions were significantly more activated in the control group than in the dyslexic group. Activations in the right frontal cortex were larger in the dyslexic group than in the control group for both speech and acoustic modes relative to rest. Dyslexic subjects showed an unexpected large deactivation in the medial occipital cortex for the acoustic mode that may reflect increased effortful attention to auditory stimuli.

Auditory Perception↗