Grantham D W, Bacon S P
Bill Wilkerson Center, Nashville, Tennessee 37212.
J Acoust Soc Am. 1991 Mar;89(3):1340-9. doi: 10.1121/1.400657.
Modulation thresholds were measured in three subjects for a sinusoidally amplitude-modulated (SAM) wideband noise (the signal) in the presence of a second amplitude-modulated wideband noise (the masker). In monaural conditions (Mm-Sm) masker and signal were presented to only one ear; in binaural conditions (M0-S pi) the masker was presented diotically while the phase of modulation of the SAM noise signal was inverted in one ear relative to the other. In experiment 1 masker modulation frequency (fm) was fixed at 16 Hz, and signal modulation frequency (fs) was varied from 2-512 Hz. For monaural presentation, masking generally decreased as fs diverged from fm, although there was a secondary increase in masking for very low signal modulation frequencies, as reported previously [Bacon and Grantham, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85, 2575-2580 (1989)]. The binaural masking patterns did not show this low-frequency upturn: binaural thresholds continued to improve as fs decreased from 16 to 2 Hz. Thus, comparing masked monaural and masked binaural thresholds, there was an average binaural advantage, or masking-level difference (MLD) of 9.4 dB at fs = 2 Hz and 5.3 dB at fs = 4 Hz. In addition, there were positive MLDs for the on-frequency condition (fm = fs = 16 Hz: average MLD = 4.4 dB) and for the highest signal frequency tested (fs = 512 Hz: average MLD = 7.3 dB). In experiment 2 the signal was a SAM noise (fs = 16 Hz), and the masker was a wideband noise, amplitude-modulated by a narrow band of noise centered at fs. There was no effect on monaural or binaural thresholds as masker modulator bandwidth was varied from 4 to 20 Hz (the average MLD remained constant at 8.0 dB), which suggests that the observed "tuning" for modulation may be based on temporal pattern discrimination and not on a critical-band-like filtering mechanism. In a final condition the masker modulator was a 10-Hz-wide band of noise centered at the 64-Hz signal modulation frequency. The average MLD in this case was 7.4 dB. The results are discussed in terms of various binaural capacities that probably play a role in binaural release from modulation masking, including detection of varying interaural intensity differences (IIDs) and discrimination of interaural correlation.
在三名受试者中测量了在存在第二个调幅宽带噪声(掩蔽声)的情况下,正弦调幅(SAM)宽带噪声(信号)的调制阈值。在单耳条件下(Mm-Sm),掩蔽声和信号仅呈现给一只耳朵;在双耳条件下(M0-S pi),掩蔽声以双耳同相方式呈现,而SAM噪声信号的调制相位在一只耳朵相对于另一只耳朵发生反转。在实验1中,掩蔽声调制频率(fm)固定为16 Hz,信号调制频率(fs)在2至512 Hz之间变化。对于单耳呈现,掩蔽通常随着fs与fm的差异增大而降低,尽管如先前报道的那样[Bacon和Grantham,《美国声学学会杂志》85,2575 - 2580(1989)],对于非常低的信号调制频率,掩蔽会有二次增加。双耳掩蔽模式没有显示出这种低频上升:随着fs从16 Hz降低到2 Hz,双耳阈值持续改善。因此,比较掩蔽单耳阈值和掩蔽双耳阈值,在fs = 2 Hz时平均双耳优势或掩蔽级差(MLD)为9.4 dB,在fs = 4 Hz时为5.3 dB。此外,在同频条件下(fm = fs = 16 Hz:平均MLD = 4.4 dB)和测试的最高信号频率(fs = 512 Hz:平均MLD = 7.3 dB)时也有正的MLD。在实验2中,信号是SAM噪声(fs = 16 Hz),掩蔽声是由以fs为中心的窄带噪声进行幅度调制的宽带噪声。当掩蔽声调制器带宽从4 Hz变化到20 Hz时,对单耳或双耳阈值没有影响(平均MLD保持在8.0 dB不变),这表明观察到的调制“调谐”可能基于时间模式辨别,而不是基于类似临界带的滤波机制。在最后一种条件下,掩蔽声调制器是以64 Hz信号调制频率为中心的10 Hz宽带噪声。在这种情况下平均MLD为7.4 dB。根据可能在双耳调制掩蔽解脱中起作用的各种双耳能力对结果进行了讨论,包括检测不同的双耳强度差(IID)和辨别双耳相关性。