Subject: Re: Rationale for Critical Bands From: James Johnston <James.Johnston@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:38:33 -0700 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>It would be enlightening if the test reporting the INTENSITY of speech vs. intelligibility would actually have reported the TOTAL LOUDNESS of the stimulus. Intensity means nothing in this context. __________________________ James D. Johnston (jj@xxxxxxxx) CHIEF SCIENTIST - DTS, Inc. 425-814-3200, ext. 134 - office 425-814-3204 - fax 206-321-7449- mobile 11410 NE 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98034 This electronic transmission (and/or the documents accompanying it) may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify DTS, Inc immediately by telephone (425-814-3200) and destroy the original message. Messages sent to and from us may be monitored. -----Original Message----- From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Martin Braun Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:33 AM To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Rationale for Critical Bands Dear List: Brian C. J. Moore wrote: > And speech perception does deteriorate at high levels, probably due to > broadening of the auditory filters. See, for example: > > Studebaker, G. A., Sherbecoe, R. L., McDaniel, D. M., Gwaltney, C. A., > 1999. Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise > levels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 2431-2444. This is not true. Deterioration only occurs for speech in noise, and only if noise level increases with speech level. Already in the abstract the authors stated: " Speech levels ranged from 64 to 99 dB SPL .......... In quiet, the performance of normal-hearing subjects remained essentially constant" Where was the "broadening of the auditory filters" in the quiet condition? Thank you very much for giving further support to my argument. I had estimated that nothing happens up to 80 dB. Now we even have data that nothing happens up to 99 dB. As to the definition of the term "Auditory Filter", there are probably as many as authors using it. I have been suggesting for about a decade that this term is abandoned in scientific discussions. First, what users actually mean is "filter band", not "filter". The filters in hearing are the hair cells and the neurons. Second, filter bands are characterized by the conditions of the place where you measure them. A general "auditory filter" in any biological system is just a myth. Martin --------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Braun Neuroscience of Music S-671 95 Klässbol Sweden email: nombraun@xxxxxxxx web site: http://www.neuroscience-of-music.se/index.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian C. J. Moore" <bcjm@xxxxxxxx> To: <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:41 PM Subject: Re: Rationale for Critical Bands > Dear All > > At 15:00 15/06/2010, Wiebe Horst wrote: >>Dear all, >> >>I am getting more and more confused by this discussion. >>It would help if every contributor started by giving his/her >>definition of Critical Band. >>I am used to using Scharf's (1970) definition: >>"The critical band is a band of that width at which subjective >>responses change rather abruptly." > > The problem with this definition is that there are few if any auditory > responses which "change rather abruptly" at a certain bandwidth. The > perceptual changes are nearly always smooth and progressive, consistent > with auditory filters with rounded tops. > > And speech perception does deteriorate at high levels, probably due to > broadening of the auditory filters. See, for example: > > Studebaker, G. A., Sherbecoe, R. L., McDaniel, D. M., Gwaltney, C. A., > 1999. Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise > levels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 2431-2444. > > Best wishes, > > Brian Moore > > Brian C. J. Moore, Ph.D, FMedSci, FRS, > Professor of Auditory Perception, > Department of Experimental Psychology, > University of Cambridge, > Downing Street, > Cambridge CB2 3EB, > UK > Tel. +44 (0) 1223 333574 > Fax. +44 (0) 1223 333564 > http://hearing.psychol.cam.ac.uk Notice: This message and any included attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy the original message and any copies or printouts hereof.