Temporal-structure processing efficiency drives pitch but not interaural timing tasks
Evidence
The thresholds for the HUGGINS task showed a significant positive correlation with those for the TIME task (r = 0.50, p = 0.004), but not with those for the ITD task (r = 0.11, p = 0.553). This suggests that the performances of the TIME and HUGGINS tasks capture inter-individual variation of the efficiency of temporal-structure processing, but that of the ITD task is determined primarily by other factors. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1078
Categorization
Category: Factual Claims
Related
- Temporal-structure and interaural-timing sensitivities rely on partially separate mechanisms (similarity 0.94)
- ITD sensitivity is not explained by basic temporal-structure processing efficiency. (similarity 0.92)
- ITD task performance does not share the same inter-individual efficiency factor as temporal-structure tasks. (similarity 0.90)
- Peripheral frequency resolution shapes performance on both temporal-structure tasks. (similarity 0.86)
- Huggins pitch and temporal-structure tasks share variance that ITD lateralization does not. (similarity 0.83)
- Apparent temporal-coding correlations across tasks vanish once age effects are removed (similarity 0.81)
- Tactile-audio desynchrony is as critical as audiovisual desynchrony (similarity 0.80)
- Haptic-audio timing errors are as noticeable as audio-visual ones (similarity 0.80)
- Temporal processing divides into resolution, masking, and integration categories (similarity 0.79)
- Abrupt changes in interaural timing elicit cortical responses at 50, 100, and 175 ms (similarity 0.78)
- Apparent links between temporal tasks may be confounded by frequency selectivity (similarity 0.78)
- The ear detects binaural delays finer than individual neuron timing supports (similarity 0.78)