Fig. 3.1 The LIEFTS model captures absolute thresholds. (a) Schematic envelopes of some of the stimuli for which such thresholds were measured. They are grouped into three categories, multiple-burst (MB),…
Fig. 13.1 Following SNHL, the most dominant TFS response component was below the estimated cochlear CF (arrow in top left panel, Liberman 1984). (a–d) Normalized power spectra of difcor functions….
Fig. 17.1 Percentages of pitch-matched F0 relative to the overlap-and-add frequency The response distributions were discrete: most of matches were concentrated near 0 cent or −1,200 cents (an octave below)….
Fig. 36.1 Influence of rate of formant-frequency variation on the effect of competitors (F2C+F3C) on intelligibility (synthetic-formant sentences). Mean scores and standard errors are shown separately for the constant- and…
Fig. 10.1 Auditory spectra for five complex tones with the same lowest component (15). The fundamental was 100 Hz and the tones had 2, 3, 5, 9 or 17 consecutive…
Fig. 6.1 Linear reference TMCs obtained with and without the CWN. Symbols and dotted lines: mean experimental data; error bars illustrate ± one standard deviation. Continuous lines: computer model simulations…
Fig. 19.1 Left panel: mean thresholds across four listeners as a function of precursor/masker notch width for the unenhanced (filled squares) and enhanced (open circles) conditions. Right panel: threshold differences…
Fig. 26.1 Mean FFR spectral magnitude at 504 Hz and the corresponding standard errors across ten subjects. Panel a shows the data for the no-gap condition. The three left-hand groups…
Fig. 2.1 Flow diagram of the MATLAB Auditory Periphery (MAP) model. The lower boxes on the left refer to activity driven by low spontaneous rate (LSR) fibres and forming (speculatively)…
Fig. 5.1 Schematic of the stimuli used in the TMC, FDMC and AFM methods, panels a, b and c, respectively. Double-headed arrows indicate the stimulus that was adaptively varied. M…
