In the audio‐frequency domain, the envelope apparently plays an important role in detection of intensity increments and in comodulation masking release (CMR). The current study addressed the question whether the second‐order envelope (‘‘venelope’’) contributes similarly for comparable experiments in the envelope‐frequency domain. One set of experiments examined the relationship between gated intensity discrimination and continuous‐carrier increment detection. In contrast to the asymmetry observed in the audio‐frequency domain (listeners are more sensitive to increments), AM‐depth discrimination thresholds were found to be the same in conditions with a continuous (modulated) carrier and with traditional gated stimuli for AM frequencies ranging from 4–64 Hz. The second set of experiments compared the amount of CMR in a tone‐in‐noise detection task when slow, regular fluctuations were imposed on the masking waveform in both domains. A significant release from masking of a 32‐Hz signal in the modulation frequency domain was obtained only when the venelope fluctuations were slower than 1–2 Hz. Both experiments suggest a relatively weak contribution of venelope cues in the AM domain when compared to those provided by envelope cues in the spectral domain. [Work supported by NIH‐NIDCD R01001641 (PCN, LHC) and the Danish Research Council (SDE, TD).]
Meeting abstract. No PDF available.
Comparison of intensity discrimination, increment detection, and comodulation masking release in the envelope and audio‐frequency domains
Paul C. Nelson, Stephan D. Ewert, Laurel H. Carney, Torsten Dau; Comparison of intensity discrimination, increment detection, and comodulation masking release in the envelope and audio‐frequency domains. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1 April 2005; 117 (4_Supplement): 2535. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4788417
Download citation file: