Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Binaural suppression of nonechoes

Authors: P L, Divenyi;

Binaural suppression of nonechoes

Abstract

A brief diotic conditioner has been shown to effectively disrupt lateralization of a brief dichotic probe presented after a short interval (4–10 ms, onset to onset) with an interaural time delay that is clearly discriminable in the absence of the conditioner [e.g., P. M. Zurek, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 66, 1750–1757 (1980)], even when the conditioner and the probe are different sounds [P. L. Divenyi and J. Blauert, in Auditory Processing of Complex Sounds, edited by W. A. Yost and C. S. Watson (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1987), pp. 146–155]. The present experiments investigated lateralization suppression of a narrow-band dichotic probe centered at 2 kHz by a narrow-band diotic conditioner, in situations in which the probe could not be regarded as an echo of the conditioner. In one case, the conditioner was identical to the probe but was presented in opposite phase; in other conditions, the center frequency of the conditioner was different, with the center frequency to bandwidth ratio remaining constant. The effects of frequency and temporal separation between the conditioner and the probe on the suppression of the lateralization of the probe were explored. Suppression of lateralization was measured as the increase in the just-noticeable interaural time difference (jnd), with respect to the interaural time jnd obtained for the probe alone. Low-frequency (0.5 to 1.5 kHz) conditioners were more effective in suppressing the lateralization of the probe than those at or above the probe frequency. The results suggest that a diotic stimulus with a relatively high localization strength (i.e., one that yields low interaural time jnd’s when presented in isolation) could ‘‘mask’’ the localization of a subsequent dichotic stimulus having a lower localization strength.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Pitch Discrimination, Humans, Attention, Sound Localization, Dichotic Listening Tests, Psychoacoustics

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    27
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
27
Average
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!