Psychophysical suppression as a function of signal frequency: noise and tonal maskers.

Physiological studies have suggested that the basal region of the cochlea is more nonlinear than the apical region. To evaluate this possibility psychophysically, suppression was investigated across signal frequency (250, 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz) in a forward-masking paradigm using both noise and tonal maskers/suppressors. Masker duration was 200 ms, signal duration was 20 or 40 ms, and signal delay was 0 or 20 ms; the longer delay was necessary to eliminate potential confusion effects observed with the (narrow-band) noise masker. When using a noise masker (spectrum level of 40 dB), suppression was determined by comparing the threshold in the presence of a broadband masker with that in the presence of a critical band (ERB) masker. When using a tonal masker (masker level of 50 dB SPL, suppressor level of 70 dB SPL, with the suppressor frequency being 1.2 times the masker/signal frequency), suppression was determined by comparing the threshold in the presence of the masker plus suppressor with that in the presence of the masker alone. The magnitude of suppression was determined either by the measured change in signal threshold or by the inferred change in masker level. Regardless of how suppression was quantified, for both masker types, the amount of suppression increased as signal frequency increased up to about 1000 Hz, but then reached an asymptote or decreased somewhat as signal frequency increased to 4000 Hz. The magnitude of suppression was much larger with a noise masker than with a tonal masker, which could be a result of the different number of components in the masker which might serve as a suppressor.

[1]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  D. L. Neff,et al.  Confusion effects with sinusoidal and narrow-band noise forward maskers. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  R. Shannon Two-tone unmasking and suppression in a forward-masking situation. , 1976, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  B C Moore,et al.  Contralateral and ipsilateral cueing in forward masking. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  William S. Rhode,et al.  Two-tone suppression and distortion production on the basilar membrane in the hook region of cat and guinea pig cochleae , 1993, Hearing Research.

[6]  W. S. Rhode Observations of the vibration of the basilar membrane in squirrel monkeys using the Mössbauer technique. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  L. Thibodeau,et al.  Comparison of suppression across frequencies , 1993 .

[8]  Ian M. Winter,et al.  Basilar membrane nonlinearity determines auditory nerve rate-intensity functions and cochlear dynamic range , 1990, Hearing Research.

[9]  H Fastl,et al.  Suppression in simultaneous masking. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Eric Javel Shapes of cat auditory nerve fiber tuning curves , 1994, Hearing Research.

[11]  Brian R Glasberg,et al.  Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data , 1990, Hearing Research.

[12]  D L Weber,et al.  Temporal factors and suppression effects in backward and forward masking. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  B. Moore,et al.  Growth of forward masking for sinusoidal and noise maskers as a function of signal delay; implications for suppression in noise. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  B C Moore,et al.  The danger of using narrow-band noise maskers to measure "suppression". , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Bertrand Delgutte,et al.  Two-tone rate suppression in auditory-nerve fibers: Dependence on suppressor frequency and level , 1990, Hearing Research.

[16]  W. Jesteadt,et al.  Forward masking as a function of frequency, masker level, and signal delay. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  D L Weber Combined effect of two suppressors. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  B C Moore,et al.  Interactions of masker bandwidth with signal duration and delay in forward masking. , 1981, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  D. L. Weber Suppression and critical bands in band-limiting experiments. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  William S. Rhode,et al.  Nonlinear mechanics at the apex of the guinea-pig cochlea , 1995, Hearing Research.

[21]  B C Moore "Suppression" effects in forward masking. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  L. Robles,et al.  Two-tone suppression in the basilar membrane of the cochlea: mechanical basis of auditory-nerve rate suppression. , 1992, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  J J Zwislocki,et al.  Effects of hair cell lesions on responses of cochlear nerve fibers. I. Lesions, tuning curves, two-tone inhibition, and responses to trapezoidal-wave patterns. , 1980, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  N. Viemeister,et al.  Forward masking by enhanced components in harmonic complexes. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  D. D. Greenwood A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  D L Neff Stimulus parameters governing confusion effects in forward masking. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  P J Abbas,et al.  Suppression effects for complex stimuli. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.