Delaying the onset of a signal relative to the onset of a simultaneous notched masker often improves the ability of subjects to ‘‘hear out’’ the signal at both threshold and suprathreshold levels. Viemeister and Bacon [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 71, 1502–1507 (1982)] suggested that such signal‐enhancement effects might be attributable to adaptation of the suppression directed from the masker to the signal, thereby releasing the signal from suppression. In support of their hypothesis, Viemeister and Bacon reported that a masker, preceded by an enhancer having no component at the signal frequency, produced more forward masking than did the masker by itself. Here the masker enhancement described by Viemeister and Bacon, signal enhancement, and two‐tone suppression were measured in the same six subjects. Parametric manipulations of the masker‐enhancement stimulus produced results similar to those previously reported for parallel investigations of signal enhancement, indicating that the two types of enhancement are closely related effects. Although the present data reveal an inverse relationship between the amounts of suppression and enhancement, suggesting that the two processes may be interrelated, no support was obtained for the hypothesis that adaptation of suppression can account for enhancement.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
July 1993
July 01 1993
Adaptation of suppression as an explanation of enhancement effectsa)
Beverly A. Wright;
Beverly A. Wright
Psychoacoustics Laboratory, Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611
Search for other works by this author on:
Dennis McFadden;
Dennis McFadden
Department of Psychology and Institute for Neuroscience, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
Search for other works by this author on:
Craig A. Champlin
Craig A. Champlin
Department of Speech Communication and Institute for Neuroscience, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
Search for other works by this author on:
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94, 72–82 (1993)
Article history
Received:
July 10 1992
Accepted:
April 01 1993
Citation
Beverly A. Wright, Dennis McFadden, Craig A. Champlin; Adaptation of suppression as an explanation of enhancement effectsa). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1 July 1993; 94 (1): 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.408215
Download citation file:
Pay-Per-View Access
$40.00
Sign In
You could not be signed in. Please check your credentials and make sure you have an active account and try again.
Citing articles via
All we know about anechoic chambers
Michael Vorländer
A survey of sound source localization with deep learning methods
Pierre-Amaury Grumiaux, Srđan Kitić, et al.
Does sound symbolism need sound?: The role of articulatory movement in detecting iconicity between sound and meaning
Mutsumi Imai, Sotaro Kita, et al.
Related Content
Performance of hearing-impaired persons on auditory enhancement tasks
J Acoust Soc Am (June 1991)
The modulated–unmodulated difference: Effects of signal frequency and masker modulation depth
J Acoust Soc Am (June 1997)
Temporal overshoot in simultaneous‐masked psychophysical tuning curves from normal and hearing‐impaired listeners
J Acoust Soc Am (April 1989)
A comparison of psychophysical tuning curves in simultaneous and forward masking
J Acoust Soc Am (August 2005)
The enhancement effect: Evidence for adaptation of inhibition using a binaural centering task
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (April 2011)