Back to Search
Start Over
Evidence that adaptation of suppression cannot account for auditory enhancement or enhanced forward masking
- Source :
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 336:325-329
- Publication Year :
- 1992
- Publisher :
- The Royal Society, 1992.
-
Abstract
- Delaying the onset of a signal relative to the onset of a sim ultaneous notched masker often improves the ability of listeners to ‘hear o u t’ the signal at both threshold and suprathreshold levels. Viemeister & Bacon ( J. acoust. Soc. Am. , 71, 1502-1507 (1982)) suggested th at such auditory enhancement effects could be accounted for if the suppression produced by the masker on the signal frequency adapted, thereby releasing the signal from suppression. In support of their hypothesis, Viemeister & Bacon reported that a masker preceded by an enhancer having no com ponent at the signal frequency produced more forward masking than did the masker by itself. Here evidence is provided from five new experiments showing that adaptation of psychophysical two-tone suppression is inadequate to account either for auditory enhancement effects or for the enhanced forward masking demonstrated by Viemeister & Bacon.
- Subjects :
- Masking (art)
medicine.medical_specialty
Noise (signal processing)
Auditory Threshold
Adaptation (eye)
Audiology
behavioral disciplines and activities
Signal
General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Signal frequency
Acoustic Stimulation
Adaptation, Psychological
Forward masking
medicine
Psychophysics
Humans
General Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Perceptual Masking
psychological phenomena and processes
Psychoacoustics
Mathematics
Subjects
Details
- ISSN :
- 14712970 and 09628436
- Volume :
- 336
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....8a4e1e39621f461e5aa84319e6a41082
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1992.0065