Masking experiments infer auditory representation from masker effects on signals.

Evidence

Unlike physiological experiments, where we can measure the response elicited by a single stimulus, a masking study always involves at least two sounds: a signal and a masker. The signal is the sound being detected, whereas the masker is the interfering sound. Often the signal is a pure tone, but in principle, it can be any type of sound, such as speech and complex sounds. The same is true for the masker; it can be any type of sound such as noise, speech, or tones. In these studies, by measuring the influence of a masker on a signal, we can make inferences about how the signal or the masker is represented by the auditory system. — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 441

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines signal vs masker and why the masking paradigm is used for inference.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 441
• XREF: connects to: A masker raises the audibility threshold of a test sound.; Hearing masks sounds before they occur via slower and faster sensory build-up times; Off-frequency listening can distort auditory filter measurement unless masked (+12 more)

Broader Connections

• Masking patterns reveal the ear’s internal psychological representation of a sound. #expands (0.95) — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 465
• Lossy coding exploits psychoacoustic models to make removed information inaudible #expands (0.85) — David M. Howard, Jamie Angus, Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 2581
• Perceptual coders exploit masking to cut audio storage and bandwidth #expands (0.80) — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 1656