A distant interferer tone can disrupt target detection via across-frequency MDI.
Evidence
Sound of a given frequency can block our ability to hear softer sounds at nearby frequencies, but distant frequencies are not affected. The threshold for detecting the softer sound is raised by the presence of a louder sound within the same critical bandwidth. Even if the softer sound is audible, it will not seem as loud as it would if played alone. Similarly, two tones that fall within the same critical bandwidth will appear to be less loud together than two tones of the same total energy that fall outside each others’ critical bandwidths. — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 2009 (
#contradicts, via linked claim)
Although this model predicted the trend for the 800-Hz target the effect was too small. For the 730-Hz target, no effect was predicted, in contrast to the data. Thus this energy-based AC model was unable to predict the effect of the interferer on the diotic thresholds. The second model assumed that modulation cues with frequencies adjacent to the beating frequency between interferer and masker could not be used for signal detection. This was realised in the modulation-based AC model by setting the output of the corresponding modulation filters to zero. This approach predicted general trends of the diotic data of the present study. Among others it predicted a larger effect of the interferer for the 800-Hz signal than for the 730-Hz target, in agreement with the data. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3494 (
#complicates, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Modulation-frequency-specific disruption captures interferer masking effects better than energy models; MDI interference peaks when target and interferer share symmetric offsets.; Energy-based models of modulation filterbanks fail to predict interferer effects on detection — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3494 (+1 more)
Related
- Modulation-frequency-specific disruption captures interferer masking effects better than energy models (similarity 0.94)
- Interferers partially rather than fully suppress the modulation cues used for detection (similarity 0.90)
- Modulation Detection Interference operates across different auditory frequency channels (similarity 0.88)
- Modulation Detection Interference is frequency-selective in its effectiveness (similarity 0.88)
- Energy-based models of modulation filterbanks fail to predict interferer effects on detection (similarity 0.86)
- Both models mispredict how near an interferer must sit to raise detection thresholds. (similarity 0.86)
- A tone matching the masker-signal spectral distance degrades beating-cue detection more than other interferers (similarity 0.86)
- Only modulation-based processing, not energy-based, predicts how interferers raise detection thresholds. (similarity 0.85)
- Equal spectral distances between masker, target, and interferer degrade detection most (similarity 0.85)
- Auditory modulation processing is frequency-selective in detecting masked targets (similarity 0.84)
- Across-channel interference can be modelled by subtracting off-frequency filter energy (similarity 0.84)
- Masking interference is strongest when interferer and target match spectral distance from the masker (similarity 0.84)
- Modulation interference degrades rather than abolishes modulation cues across a range of frequencies. (similarity 0.83)
- Intrinsic noise amplitude fluctuation masks detection of imposed amplitude modulation (similarity 0.82)
- A modulation filter bank may explain source grouping but remains unproven (similarity 0.82)
Broader Connections
- MDI interference peaks when target and interferer share symmetric offsets.
#expands(0.90) - Masking acts within critical bandwidths, leaving distant-frequency sounds unaffected
#contradicts(0.85) — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 2009 - Energy-based models of modulation filterbanks fail to predict interferer effects on detection
#complicates(0.75) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3494