Hall J W, Grose J H
Division of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina Medical School, Chapel Hill 27599-7070, USA.
J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Feb;101(2):1044-9. doi: 10.1121/1.418110.
Gap detection was measured for 50 and 1000-Hz-wide noise markers arithmetically centered on 1000 Hz. The markers were presented in a lowpass background noise having a high-frequency cutoff of 2000 Hz. The pressure spectrum level of the background noise was either 0 or 40 dB/Hz. Gap detection was determined at sensation levels (SLs) of 10, 15, 20, and 30 dB in the 0-dB/Hz background, and at SLs of 10, 15, and 20 dB in the 40-dB/Hz background. Because loudness increased more steeply in the higher level noise background, the markers in the 40-dB/Hz background were at higher loudness (and at a steeper portion of the loudness growth function) than markers in the 0-dB/Hz background, for markers matched in terms of SL. The main goal of the experiment was to determine whether gap detection would be relatively poor at steep portions of the loudness growth function due to the gap being confused with ongoing random dips. Such confusion might be particularly great when the noise bandwidth was narrow (and therefore characterized by prominent fluctuation) and the growth of loudness was steep. Gap detection was poorer for the 50-Hz-wide marker than for the 1000-Hz-wide marker. For a given marker bandwidth at a given SL, gap detection was similar whether the marker was presented in the 0-dB/Hz noise or the 40-dB/Hz noise. Supplementary conditions indicated that (1) gap detection results for 50-Hz-wide markers presented at equal SL's were also similar between a 0-dB/Hz noise background and a 55-dB/Hz noise background, and that (2) gap detection for 50- and 1000-Hz-wide markers was poorer in a 40-dB/Hz background than in a 0-dB/Hz background when markers were matched for loudness. The results generally indicated similar gap detection thresholds for markers presented at similar SLs across a relatively wide range of background noise levels. Gap detection was related more closely to the marker-to-noise ratio than to the loudness relation between markers or the steepness of loudness growth.
针对以1000赫兹为算术中心、宽度分别为50赫兹和1000赫兹的噪声标记进行了间隙检测。这些标记呈现于高频截止为2000赫兹的低通背景噪声中。背景噪声的压力谱级为0或40分贝/赫兹。在0分贝/赫兹的背景中,在10、15、20和30分贝的感觉级(SL)下测定间隙检测;在40分贝/赫兹的背景中,在10、15和20分贝的感觉级下测定间隙检测。因为在较高水平的噪声背景中响度增加得更陡,对于在感觉级上匹配的标记,40分贝/赫兹背景中的标记比0分贝/赫兹背景中的标记具有更高的响度(并且处于响度增长函数更陡的部分)。该实验的主要目的是确定由于间隙与正在进行的随机下降相混淆,间隙检测在响度增长函数的陡峭部分是否会相对较差。当噪声带宽较窄(因此以明显的波动为特征)且响度增长陡峭时,这种混淆可能会特别严重。50赫兹宽的标记的间隙检测比1000赫兹宽的标记差。对于给定的标记带宽和给定的感觉级,无论标记呈现于0分贝/赫兹的噪声还是40分贝/赫兹的噪声中,间隙检测都是相似的。补充条件表明:(1)在0分贝/赫兹的噪声背景和55分贝/赫兹的噪声背景之间,以相等感觉级呈现的50赫兹宽标记的间隙检测结果也是相似的;(2)当标记在响度上匹配时,50赫兹和1000赫兹宽标记在40分贝/赫兹的背景中的间隙检测比在0分贝/赫兹的背景中差。结果总体上表明,在相对较宽的背景噪声水平范围内,以相似感觉级呈现的标记具有相似的间隙检测阈值。间隙检测与标记与噪声的比率关系更密切,而不是与标记之间的响度关系或响度增长的陡度关系更密切。