Masking interference is strongest when interferer and target match spectral distance from the masker

Evidence

The results from Hawkins and Stevens (1950) illustrate a small, but robust, effect of signal frequency. However, we can better observe the relationship between the frequency of maskers and the frequencies of the signals when experiments are conducted under variable frequency conditions. — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 461 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Ideal binary masking isolates time-frequency tiles where target dominates masker — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1753; Masking effectiveness depends on masker-signal power, frequency, and timing relationships — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 461; MDI interference peaks when target and interferer share symmetric offsets. (+1 more)

Related

• Interferer effects on masked auditory thresholds peak when interferer-masker and masker-target distances match (similarity 0.88)
• An interferer nearest the masker in frequency most strongly elevates signal thresholds. (similarity 0.87)
• Equal spectral distances between masker, target, and interferer degrade detection most (similarity 0.86)
• Auditory modulation processing is frequency-selective in detecting masked targets (similarity 0.86)
• Masking effectiveness depends on masker-signal power, frequency, and timing relationships (similarity 0.86)
• Masking operates on a continuous scale between audible and fully masked. (similarity 0.84)
• A tone matching the masker-signal spectral distance degrades beating-cue detection more than other interferers (similarity 0.84)
• Ideal binary masking isolates time-frequency tiles where target dominates masker (similarity 0.84)
• A distant interferer tone can disrupt target detection via across-frequency MDI. (similarity 0.84)
• Uniform masking noise is engineered as the inverse of white-noise masking’s frequency dependence. (similarity 0.84)
• Modulation Detection Interference is frequency-selective in its effectiveness (similarity 0.83)
• Modulation-frequency-specific disruption captures interferer masking effects better than energy models (similarity 0.82)
• Masker effectiveness is determined solely by power falling within one auditory filter. (similarity 0.82)
• Equal-level narrow-band maskers mask less at higher centre frequencies (similarity 0.82)
• Masking reduces to a comparison of excitation-level patterns over frequency and time (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• MDI interference peaks when target and interferer share symmetric offsets. #corroborates (0.85)
• Masking effectiveness depends on masker-signal power, frequency, and timing relationships #expands (0.80) — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 461