A binaural model of monotic level discrimination
Download
1 / 17

A Binaural Model of Monotic Level Discrimination - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 78 Views
  • Uploaded on

A Binaural Model of Monotic Level Discrimination. Daniel E. Shub and H. Steven Colburn Boston University, Hearing Research Center Harvard-MIT, Health Science and Technology. Introduction.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'A Binaural Model of Monotic Level Discrimination' - raven


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
A binaural model of monotic level discrimination

A Binaural Model of Monotic Level Discrimination

Daniel E. Shub and H. Steven Colburn

Boston University, Hearing Research Center

Harvard-MIT, Health Science and Technology


Introduction
Introduction

  • Monaural level discrimination can be degraded by the addition of a second ear [Rowland and Tobias JSHR 1967, Bernstein JASA 2005, and Shub and Colburn ARO 2004]

  • Traditional models cannot predict this degradation

  • Understanding this degradation might be important for bilateral hearing aids and cochlear implants


Outline
Outline

  • Psychophysical experiment

    • One-interval left-ear level discrimination task with a roving contralateral distractor

    • Extremely limited amount of published data on degradation from the other ear

    • Previous studies used multi-interval adaptive paradigms which increases model complexity

  • Predict results with a detection theoretic model based on binaural information


Psychophysical experiment
Psychophysical Experiment

Distractor tone

Roving level: 50-80 dB

Roving phase: ± 90°

Target tone

Level: 50 or 58 dB

Fixed phase: 0°

  • Task is to detect a level increment of a monaural target in the presence of a simultaneous but contra-aural distractor

  • Both target and distractor are 600 Hz tones with 300 ms duration

  • 1-interval, 2-alternative-forced-choice with feedback paradigm

  • Without distractor: traditional monotic level discrimination task


Stimulus perception
Stimulus Perception

  • Dominant perception: Single image with a salient loudness and position

    • Target level affects loudness and position

    • Distractor level affects loudness and position

    • Distractor phase affects position

  • Additional “fragile” images

    • Time image, image shape/width


A binaural model of monotic level discrimination

Psychophysical Results

Distractor

Lags

Leads

Pf

Pd

  • Overall Performance:

    • With distractor: 73% correct

    • No distractor: 97% correct (not shown)

  • Responded “Incremented” more with intense and lagging distractors


Detection theoretic model
Detection Theoretic Model

  • Observe:

  • Analysis is currently limited to zero-mean Gaussian noise which is independent across the dimensions

  • Variances of the internal noise and value of trading ratio k are fit to previous level discrimination and lateralization experiments


Ideal observer
Ideal Observer

  • Ideal (maximum likelihood) observer:

    • Achieves 99% correct discrimination performance

    • Decision rule is defined by a complex surface

      • Divides 3-D space into regions of “Incremented” and “Un-Incremented”

        • Small  and large  fall into the “Un-Incremented” region

      • For some Q and T, there are no values of  which fall into the “Incremented” region

  • ,  and  carry too much information

  •  and  do not carry sufficient information

  • Consider non-ideal observer of ,  and 


Non ideal observer
Non-Ideal Observer

  • Non-ideal observer modifies the ideal rule:

    • Responds “Incremented” for large , independent of  and 

      • Assumes subjects always respond “Incremented” whenever a “loud” stimulus is heard

    • Decision rule (criterion) is jittered (zero-mean Gaussian noise) to further decrease discrimination performance

      • Assumes subjects have difficulties implementing the multidimensional decision space; imposes cost for complex decisions

  • Non-ideal observer has four free parameters

    • Variances of the criterion jitter (sL, sQ, sT)

    • The  for which the response is always “Incremented” (threshold)


Minimum rms error predications
Minimum RMS Error Predications

RMS error of 11%

60% of the variance was accounted for


Maximum variance accounted for
Maximum Variance Accounted For

RMS error was 17%

73% of the variance was accounted for


A binaural model of monotic level discrimination

Comparison

Psychophysical Data

RMS error: 11%

60% of variance accounted for

Minimum RMS error predictions

Captures mean, but not shape

RMS error: 17%

73% of variance accounted for

Maximum variance accounted for predictions

Captures shape, but not mean


Monotic level discrimination
Monotic Level Discrimination

  • Under monotic conditions our model is a monaural energy detector

  • Level discrimination models are often more complex than simple energy detectors

  • Our model could be modified such that under monotic conditions it reduces to these “better” models of level discrimination

  • Modified models have not been evaluated

    • Current model is run on a 54-processor supercomputer


Conclusions
Conclusions

  • Monaural level discrimination can be degraded by the “other” ear

  • Ideal observer of two dimensions is degraded

    • 2D model does not predict the data accurately

  • Ideal observer of “loudness”, “position” and “time-image” is NOT degraded by the “other” ear

  • Non-ideal observer of the three dimensions predicts a large proportion of the variance of the data


Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments

NIH NIDCD

DC00100 and DC004663

Binaural Gang at Boston University

Nat Durlach


Why three dimensions
Why Three Dimensions?

  • Observe:

  • The ideal observer of two dimensions has an RMS error of 37%


2 d model predictions
2-D Model Predictions

RMS error was 37% and variance was added

Visually a completely wrong fit