ArticleHearing research2019
The effect of envelope modulations on binaural processing.
Article in Hearing research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Interaural-time-difference thresholds for broad band-limited pulses are affected by relative bandwidth not temporal envelope sharpness.JASA express letters · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An experiment was performed with 10 young normal-hearing listeners that attempted to determine if envelope modulations affected binaural processing in bandlimited pulse trains. Listeners detected an interaurally out-of-phase carrier pulse train in the presence of different amplitude modulations. The peaks of the pulses were constant (called "flat" or F), followed envelope modulations from an interaurally correlated 50-Hz bandwidth noise (called CM), or followed modulations from an interaurally uncorrelated noise (called UM). The pulse rate was varied from 50 to 500 pulses per second (pps) and the center frequency (CF) was 4 or 8 kHz. It was hypothesized that CM would cause no change or an increase in performance compared to F; UM would cause a decrease because of the blurring of the binaural detection cue. There was a small but significant decrease from F to CM (inconsistent with the hypothesis) and a further decrease from CM to UM (consistent with the hypothesis). Critically, there was a significant envelope by rate interaction caused by a decrease from F to CM for the 200-300 pps rates. The data can be explained by a subject-based factor, where some listeners experienced interaural envelope decorrelation when the sound was encoded by the auditory system that reduced performance when the modulations were present. Since the decrease in performance between F and CM conditions was small, it seems that most young normal-hearing listeners have very similar encoding of modulated stimuli across the ears. This type of task, when further optimized, may be able to assess if hearing-impaired populations experience interaural decorrelation from encoding modulated stimuli and therefore could help better understand the limited spatial hearing in populations like cochlear-implant users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.