Cochlear nonlinearity: Implications for auditory signal processing and perception

Conscious perception of auditory nonlinearity in combination tones, the low-frequency intermodulation products of two or more tones, goes at least back to Tartini (1692–1770). Renewed interest around 1970 [e.g., J. L. Goldstein, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 41, 676–689 (1967); J. L. Hall, J. Acoust. Soc. Am....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1996-04, Vol.99 (4_Supplement), p.2582-2603
1. Verfasser: Duifhuis, Hendrikus
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2603
container_issue 4_Supplement
container_start_page 2582
container_title The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
container_volume 99
creator Duifhuis, Hendrikus
description Conscious perception of auditory nonlinearity in combination tones, the low-frequency intermodulation products of two or more tones, goes at least back to Tartini (1692–1770). Renewed interest around 1970 [e.g., J. L. Goldstein, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 41, 676–689 (1967); J. L. Hall, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 56, 1818–1828 (1974); G. F. Smoorenburg, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 52, 615–632 (1972)] led to the conclusion that the nonlinearity originates in the (intact) cochlea. At that time, nobody paid special attention to the point that acoustical effects within the cochlea should be reflected at the aural entrance. Today, that issue (DPOAE) is actively explored. The link with auditory perception receives lesser emphasis, hopefully not because a proper psychoacoustic measurement requires more than reading a stimulus parameter (cf. Psychoacoustics and David M. Green). Next, two-tone suppression became an issue where psychological and physiological nonlinear acoustics met. The phenomena are intertwined, and probably inseparable from the point of view of underlying biophysical mechanism. Finally, obviously the auditory nonlinearity is compressive. The negligible impact of this result on development of a biophysical basis for the auditory dynamic range and the decibel scale remains puzzling.
doi_str_mv 10.1121/1.415106
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1121_1_415106</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1121_1_415106</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-crossref_primary_10_1121_1_4151063</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVjr0KwjAURjMo-As-QkYXNddqsa5F0VFwDyFN65WYhHvr0LdX0Rdw-s4HZzhCzEAtAdawguUGtqDynhgqpWCxKfJ8IEbM9_fd7rJiKC5ltDfvDMkQg8fwJmy7vTw_kkdrWoyBZR1JmmeFbaROMjbBeJkoWseMoZEmVDI5si599Ino18azm_52LObHw7U8LSxFZnK1ToQPQ50GpT-ZGvQ3M_tDfQHlDkUu</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cochlear nonlinearity: Implications for auditory signal processing and perception</title><source>AIP Acoustical Society of America</source><creator>Duifhuis, Hendrikus</creator><creatorcontrib>Duifhuis, Hendrikus</creatorcontrib><description>Conscious perception of auditory nonlinearity in combination tones, the low-frequency intermodulation products of two or more tones, goes at least back to Tartini (1692–1770). Renewed interest around 1970 [e.g., J. L. Goldstein, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 41, 676–689 (1967); J. L. Hall, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 56, 1818–1828 (1974); G. F. Smoorenburg, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 52, 615–632 (1972)] led to the conclusion that the nonlinearity originates in the (intact) cochlea. At that time, nobody paid special attention to the point that acoustical effects within the cochlea should be reflected at the aural entrance. Today, that issue (DPOAE) is actively explored. The link with auditory perception receives lesser emphasis, hopefully not because a proper psychoacoustic measurement requires more than reading a stimulus parameter (cf. Psychoacoustics and David M. Green). Next, two-tone suppression became an issue where psychological and physiological nonlinear acoustics met. The phenomena are intertwined, and probably inseparable from the point of view of underlying biophysical mechanism. Finally, obviously the auditory nonlinearity is compressive. The negligible impact of this result on development of a biophysical basis for the auditory dynamic range and the decibel scale remains puzzling.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0001-4966</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1121/1.415106</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1996-04, Vol.99 (4_Supplement), p.2582-2603</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>207,314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Duifhuis, Hendrikus</creatorcontrib><title>Cochlear nonlinearity: Implications for auditory signal processing and perception</title><title>The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America</title><description>Conscious perception of auditory nonlinearity in combination tones, the low-frequency intermodulation products of two or more tones, goes at least back to Tartini (1692–1770). Renewed interest around 1970 [e.g., J. L. Goldstein, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 41, 676–689 (1967); J. L. Hall, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 56, 1818–1828 (1974); G. F. Smoorenburg, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 52, 615–632 (1972)] led to the conclusion that the nonlinearity originates in the (intact) cochlea. At that time, nobody paid special attention to the point that acoustical effects within the cochlea should be reflected at the aural entrance. Today, that issue (DPOAE) is actively explored. The link with auditory perception receives lesser emphasis, hopefully not because a proper psychoacoustic measurement requires more than reading a stimulus parameter (cf. Psychoacoustics and David M. Green). Next, two-tone suppression became an issue where psychological and physiological nonlinear acoustics met. The phenomena are intertwined, and probably inseparable from the point of view of underlying biophysical mechanism. Finally, obviously the auditory nonlinearity is compressive. The negligible impact of this result on development of a biophysical basis for the auditory dynamic range and the decibel scale remains puzzling.</description><issn>0001-4966</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqVjr0KwjAURjMo-As-QkYXNddqsa5F0VFwDyFN65WYhHvr0LdX0Rdw-s4HZzhCzEAtAdawguUGtqDynhgqpWCxKfJ8IEbM9_fd7rJiKC5ltDfvDMkQg8fwJmy7vTw_kkdrWoyBZR1JmmeFbaROMjbBeJkoWseMoZEmVDI5si599Ino18azm_52LObHw7U8LSxFZnK1ToQPQ50GpT-ZGvQ3M_tDfQHlDkUu</recordid><startdate>19960401</startdate><enddate>19960401</enddate><creator>Duifhuis, Hendrikus</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960401</creationdate><title>Cochlear nonlinearity: Implications for auditory signal processing and perception</title><author>Duifhuis, Hendrikus</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-crossref_primary_10_1121_1_4151063</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Duifhuis, Hendrikus</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Duifhuis, Hendrikus</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cochlear nonlinearity: Implications for auditory signal processing and perception</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America</jtitle><date>1996-04-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>99</volume><issue>4_Supplement</issue><spage>2582</spage><epage>2603</epage><pages>2582-2603</pages><issn>0001-4966</issn><abstract>Conscious perception of auditory nonlinearity in combination tones, the low-frequency intermodulation products of two or more tones, goes at least back to Tartini (1692–1770). Renewed interest around 1970 [e.g., J. L. Goldstein, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 41, 676–689 (1967); J. L. Hall, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 56, 1818–1828 (1974); G. F. Smoorenburg, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 52, 615–632 (1972)] led to the conclusion that the nonlinearity originates in the (intact) cochlea. At that time, nobody paid special attention to the point that acoustical effects within the cochlea should be reflected at the aural entrance. Today, that issue (DPOAE) is actively explored. The link with auditory perception receives lesser emphasis, hopefully not because a proper psychoacoustic measurement requires more than reading a stimulus parameter (cf. Psychoacoustics and David M. Green). Next, two-tone suppression became an issue where psychological and physiological nonlinear acoustics met. The phenomena are intertwined, and probably inseparable from the point of view of underlying biophysical mechanism. Finally, obviously the auditory nonlinearity is compressive. The negligible impact of this result on development of a biophysical basis for the auditory dynamic range and the decibel scale remains puzzling.</abstract><doi>10.1121/1.415106</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0001-4966
ispartof The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1996-04, Vol.99 (4_Supplement), p.2582-2603
issn 0001-4966
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1121_1_415106
source AIP Acoustical Society of America
title Cochlear nonlinearity: Implications for auditory signal processing and perception
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T14%3A09%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cochlear%20nonlinearity:%20Implications%20for%20auditory%20signal%20processing%20and%20perception&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20the%20Acoustical%20Society%20of%20America&rft.au=Duifhuis,%20Hendrikus&rft.date=1996-04-01&rft.volume=99&rft.issue=4_Supplement&rft.spage=2582&rft.epage=2603&rft.pages=2582-2603&rft.issn=0001-4966&rft_id=info:doi/10.1121/1.415106&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_1121_1_415106%3C/crossref%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true