1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Lateralization of noise-burst trains based on onset and ongoing interaural delays
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1121/1.3436560
/content/asa/journal/jasa/128/1/10.1121/1.3436560
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/128/1/10.1121/1.3436560
View: Figures

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Stimuli and results for Experiment 1-A. (a) The first few ms of the 250-ms binaural noise burst train (when gated abruptly) is illustrated schematically. Each rectangle represents a burst of white noise. The label (‘1’ in this case) indicates the identity of a noise token. In this experiment the noise burst trains were constructed using a single frozen token on each trial. The ITD of the first burst in the train is the main experimental variable. In this experiment bursts after the first had ITDs that alternated between and . The time span indicated by ‘repeat’ indicates the pattern of ITDs that is repeated for the remainder of the stimulus. In this experiment the stimuli themselves repeat exactly, but in subsequent experiments that will not necessarily be the case. (b) Results with rectangular gating. Pointer adjustments from four listeners plotted as a function of . The diagonal line indicates . At each value of tested there are six data points (which sometimes overlay each other). (c) As in (b), but with gradual (125-ms) rise/fall gating.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Stimuli and results for Experiment 1-B. (a) As in Fig. 1(a), but in this experiment the ITDs of the bursts after the first pair alternated between and , while was varied from −500 to in steps. The second burst pair in the train, which began the alternation between , was always right leading. Stimuli were abruptly gated. (b) Pointer adjustments from four listeners plotted as a function of .

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Stimuli and results for Experiment 1-C. (a) As in Fig. 1(a), but in this experiment the ITDs of the bursts after the first pair were fixed at , while was varied from −500 to in steps. (b) Pointer adjustments from six listeners plotted as a function of .

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Stimuli and results for Experiment 1-D. (a) As in Fig. 1(a), but in this experiment the ITDs of the bursts after the first pair alternated between and , while was varied from −500 to in steps. The second burst pair in the train, which began the alternation between plus and minus , was always right leading. Stimuli were abruptly gated. (b) Pointer adjustments from four listeners plotted as a function of . Only mean matches are shown for each condition. Note that the results for and were taken from Experiments 1-C and 1-B, respectively.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Stimuli and results for Experiment 1-E. (a) As in Fig. 1(a), but in this experiment the ITDs of the bursts after the first pair were fixed at , while was varied from −500 to in steps. (b) Pointer adjustments from four listeners plotted as a function of . Similar results (not shown) were obtained when the ongoing ITD was fixed at .

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Stimuli and results for Experiment 2-A. (a) As in Fig. 1(a), but in this experiment the noise-burst trains were constructed using “quad sets,” in which a single frozen tokens were repeated only once in each channel before a new token was introduced. ITDs alternated between and , with varying from −600 to in steps. (b) Results with rectangular gating. Pointer adjustments from four listeners plotted as a function of t. (c) As in (b), but with gradual (125-ms) rise/fall gating.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Stimuli and results for Experiment 2-B. (a) As in Fig. 6(a), but in this experiment the quad sets were initiated with the second burst of the train with an ITD of , with varying from −600 to in steps. (b) Pointer adjustments from four listeners plotted as a function of .

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Stimuli and results for Experiment 2-C with a 6-ms reflection delay. (a) As in Fig. 6(a), but in this experiment the quad sets were split up so that the second instance of each token followed 6 ms (rather than 2 ms) after the onset of the first instance of each token, with different tokens interleaved in between. varied from −500 to in steps. (b) Pointer adjustments from three listeners plotted as a function of .

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Stimuli and results for Experiment 2-C with a 10-ms reflection delay. (a) As in Fig. 8(a), but in this experiment the second instance of each token followed 10 ms (rather than 6 ms) after the onset of the first instance of each token, with different tokens interleaved in between. (b) Pointer adjustments from three listeners plotted as a function of .

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Results for Experiment 2-D with a 10-ms reflection delay. (a) The stimuli are as in Fig. 9(a), shown here abruptly gated. Pointer adjustments of two subjects are shown in panel (b) for abruptly-gated stimuli and panel (c) for slowly-gated stimuli.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/128/1/10.1121/1.3436560
2010-07-16
2014-04-24
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Lateralization of noise-burst trains based on onset and ongoing interaural delays
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/128/1/10.1121/1.3436560
10.1121/1.3436560
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM