Cochlear hearing loss and the detection of sinusoidal versus random amplitude modulation

John H. Grose; Heather L. Porter; Emily Buss; Joseph W. Hall

doi:10.1121/1.4960075

Cochlear hearing loss and the detection of sinusoidal versus random amplitude modulation

John H. Grose, Heather L. Porter, Emily Buss, Joseph W. Hall

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

8 Scopus citations

Abstract

This study assessed the effect of cochlear hearing loss on detection of random and sinusoidal amplitude modulation. Listeners with hearing loss and normal-hearing listeners (eight per group) generated temporal modulation transfer functions (TMTFs) for envelope fluctuations carried by a 2000-Hz pure tone. TMTFs for the two groups were similar at low modulation rates but diverged at higher rates presumably because of differences in frequency selectivity. For both groups, detection of random modulation was poorer than for sinusoidal modulation at lower rates but the reverse occurred at higher rates. No evidence was found that cochlear hearing loss, per se, affects modulation detection.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	EL184-EL190
Journal	Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Volume	140
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4960075
State	Published - Aug 1 2016
Externally published	Yes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
Acoustics and Ultrasonics

Access to Document

10.1121/1.4960075

Cite this

@article{8b6905955a1f44ac968499897e60b7ae,

title = "Cochlear hearing loss and the detection of sinusoidal versus random amplitude modulation",

abstract = "This study assessed the effect of cochlear hearing loss on detection of random and sinusoidal amplitude modulation. Listeners with hearing loss and normal-hearing listeners (eight per group) generated temporal modulation transfer functions (TMTFs) for envelope fluctuations carried by a 2000-Hz pure tone. TMTFs for the two groups were similar at low modulation rates but diverged at higher rates presumably because of differences in frequency selectivity. For both groups, detection of random modulation was poorer than for sinusoidal modulation at lower rates but the reverse occurred at higher rates. No evidence was found that cochlear hearing loss, per se, affects modulation detection.",

author = "Grose, {John H.} and Porter, {Heather L.} and Emily Buss and Hall, {Joseph W.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2016 Acoustical Society of America.",

year = "2016",

month = aug,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1121/1.4960075",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "140",

pages = "EL184--EL190",

journal = "Journal of the Acoustical Society of America",

issn = "0001-4966",

publisher = "Acoustical Society of America",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cochlear hearing loss and the detection of sinusoidal versus random amplitude modulation

AU - Grose, John H.

AU - Porter, Heather L.

AU - Buss, Emily

AU - Hall, Joseph W.

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - This study assessed the effect of cochlear hearing loss on detection of random and sinusoidal amplitude modulation. Listeners with hearing loss and normal-hearing listeners (eight per group) generated temporal modulation transfer functions (TMTFs) for envelope fluctuations carried by a 2000-Hz pure tone. TMTFs for the two groups were similar at low modulation rates but diverged at higher rates presumably because of differences in frequency selectivity. For both groups, detection of random modulation was poorer than for sinusoidal modulation at lower rates but the reverse occurred at higher rates. No evidence was found that cochlear hearing loss, per se, affects modulation detection.

AB - This study assessed the effect of cochlear hearing loss on detection of random and sinusoidal amplitude modulation. Listeners with hearing loss and normal-hearing listeners (eight per group) generated temporal modulation transfer functions (TMTFs) for envelope fluctuations carried by a 2000-Hz pure tone. TMTFs for the two groups were similar at low modulation rates but diverged at higher rates presumably because of differences in frequency selectivity. For both groups, detection of random modulation was poorer than for sinusoidal modulation at lower rates but the reverse occurred at higher rates. No evidence was found that cochlear hearing loss, per se, affects modulation detection.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84982730401&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84982730401&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1121/1.4960075

DO - 10.1121/1.4960075

M3 - Article

C2 - 27586778

AN - SCOPUS:84982730401

SN - 0001-4966

VL - 140

SP - EL184-EL190

JO - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

JF - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

IS - 2

ER -

Cochlear hearing loss and the detection of sinusoidal versus random amplitude modulation

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this