Modulation Detection Interference operates across different auditory frequency channels
Evidence
In a previous study (van de Par et al. 2012 ), this monaural explanation was tested by attempting to reduce the effectiveness of the modulation cues by creating a Modulation Detection Interference (MDI) effect. To this end a tonal interferer was provided at the opposite spectral side of the masker compared to where the target was, but with the same spectral distance between target and masker as between masker and interferer. This extra interferer created beating frequencies that were equal to those that should be created by the presence of the target tone. Although these beating frequencies are then present in different auditory channels, the across-frequency nature of MDI (Yost et al. 1989 ) implies that they should still interfere with the modulation cues used for detecting the target tone. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3467
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
- DEFINE: Defines the Modulation Detection Interference (MDI) effect and explains its across-frequency nature as an experimental manipulation.
Related
- Interferers partially rather than fully suppress the modulation cues used for detection (similarity 0.93)
- A distant interferer tone can disrupt target detection via across-frequency MDI. (similarity 0.89)
- Modulation-frequency-specific disruption captures interferer masking effects better than energy models (similarity 0.89)
- Modulation interference degrades rather than abolishes modulation cues across a range of frequencies. (similarity 0.88)
- Modulation Detection Interference is frequency-selective in its effectiveness (similarity 0.88)
- A tone matching the masker-signal spectral distance degrades beating-cue detection more than other interferers (similarity 0.88)
- Interferers reduce rather than abolish competing modulation cues across multiple frequencies (similarity 0.85)
- Auditory modulation processing is frequency-selective in detecting masked targets (similarity 0.85)
- Equal spectral distances between masker, target, and interferer degrade detection most (similarity 0.85)
- Energy-based models of modulation filterbanks fail to predict interferer effects on detection (similarity 0.84)
- Across-frequency modulation cues contribute to signal detection in masking. (similarity 0.83)
- Only modulation-based processing, not energy-based, predicts how interferers raise detection thresholds. (similarity 0.83)
- Auditory modulation frequency selectivity allows inherent masker fluctuations to be separated from beating-induced ones. (similarity 0.83)
- Modulation in off-frequency channels can suppress on-frequency modulation processing (similarity 0.83)
- Across-channel interference can be modelled by subtracting off-frequency filter energy (similarity 0.82)