1. Applied Psychoacoustics Lecture 3: Masking Jonas Braasch

2. From ATH to masked detection thresholds So far we have measured the absolute threshold of hearing (ATH) throughout the auditory frequency range for sinusoids. Now we would like to investigate how we detect sounds if other sounds are present as well. from tonmeister.ca after Zwicker & Fastl 1999

3. We have seen that a sine sound does not only excite the part of the basilar membrane that corresponds to its frequency but also other frequencies as well (traveling waves). The traveling wave move from the base (high freqs.) to the apex (low freqs.) and declines after passing the resonance frequency. Therefore, we expect that a sound at a given frequency also affects the detection of a sound at another frequency. We will utilize this effect to the determine the shape of auditory filters. Preliminary thoughts

4. Method We now re-measure the threshold of hearing, but in this case we present to sinusoids to the listeners. One is fixed in frequency (1 kHz) and level (60 dB SPL). The second one is varied as before. We measure at various frequencies the minimum sound pressure level at which the second tone is detected.

5. Absolute Threshold of Hearing Our absolute threshold of hearing (ATH) for a single tone now changes to … from tonmeister.ca after Zwicker & Fastl 1999

6. Masked Detection Threshold from tonmeister.ca after Zwicker & Fastl 1999 … to this one. We now speak of the masked detection threshold, with the sinusoids at 1 kHz, 60 dB SPL being the masker. Note that we find a steep slope just below 1 kHz, because in this range the basilar membrane is not much affected by the sound, while the slope is shallow for frequencies just above 1 kHz. steep curve for low freqs shallow slope for high freqs

7. Of course the masked detection threshold depends on the characteristics of the masker. In this graph, several thresholds curves are shown for various masker levels (20-100 dB SPL). 100 dB SPL is a very high value. I recommend NOT to go above 85 dB SPL if you want to repeat this measurement at home. from tonmeister.ca after Zwicker & Fastl 1999 Masked Detection Threshold

8. Auditory Filters Fletcher (1940) postulated that the auditory system behaves like a bank of pass-band filters with overlapping passband. Helmholtz (1865) already had similar ideas. Auditory filters can be measured in amplitude and phase as functions of frequency.

9. Measurement of auditory filters We will firstly restrict ourselves to the amplitude of auditory filters. We can use a similar paradigm to measure auditory filters as in our previous experiment: –present two sinusoids with same level and same frequency to the listener. The level was adjusted just above sensation level. –Next, we vary the frequency of the sinusoids in opposite direction. –The two sinusoids become inaudible at the point where they do not fall into one auditory filter anymore. In this case, the energy within each of the two auditory filters becomes to small to be detected.

10. Critical Bands: Zwicker (1961) Zwicker (1961) measured the critical bandwidth using two narrow-band maskers which masked a sine target at the center of the critical band. Zwicker recorded the detection threshold of the sine tone (varied in level) as a function of the frequency gap between both maskers. Unfortunately, the interference between the lower frequency noise masker and an the sine target lead to interference effects, and combination tones at different frequencies become audible, while the signal remains undetected. This leads to the abrupt decrease in the detection threshold at 0.3 kHz. (Fig.:Terhardt 1998)

11. Zwicker’s critical bands Linear range contradicts new findings

12. Zwicker’s critical band rate The graph shows the Critical band rate in Bark as a function of Frequency f. The equations were established to fit the data. Previous slide Errors between measured and predicted values (from equations below)

13. Zwicker’s critical bandwidth The graph shows the Critical band width in Bark as a function of Frequency f. The equation was established to fit the data. Errors between measured and predicted values (from equations below) Previous slide

14. Patterson ‘74: Measurement method Patterson (1974) used a broadband noise masker to avoid harmonicity to influence the results. from Patterson (1974) MASKING Hypothetical Shaded area: part of noise that is effectively masing the test tone

15. Patterson ‘74: Measurement method

16. Patterson 74: Results

18. Off-Frequency Listening masker Auditory filter tone masker Auditory filter tone on-frequency listening off-frequency listening By placing the center frequency of of the Auditory Filter above the test- tone frequency, the signal-to-noise ratio between the tone and the masker can be increased. This way the test tone is easier targeted.

19. Avoiding off-Frequency Listening masker Auditory filter tone masker Auditory filter tone on-frequency listening off-frequency listening In this two masker case off-frequency listening does not pay off anymore. By shifting the auditory filter, the influence of one masker is reduced, while the influence of the 2. masker is increased. Overall the signal-to- noise ratio balance decreases. In this experiment, it is assumed that the auditory filter is symmetrical, which is a good-enough approximation. 2. masker ff ff

20. Noise Gap Masking To avoid off-frequency listening, Patterson (1976) measured the threshold of the sinusoidal signal as a function of the width of the spectral notch in the noise masker. The shaded areas shows the amount of noise passing through the auditory filter. (Fig.: Moore 2004)

21. Auditory filter shape Typical shape of an auditory filter as measured by Patterson (1976). The center frequency is 1 kHz. (Fig.: Moore 2004)

22. Auditory Filter non-linearity (Fig.: Moore 2004) This graph shows the non-linearity of the auditory filter. In the left graph the filter curves Are normalized to 0 dB. The filters were measured for several 2-kHz sine tones from 30 to 80 dBs. Note how the filter broadens toward low frequencies with increasing level. In the right graph the filters were not normalized. 30 dB 80 dB

23. Auditory Filter Bandwidths (Fig.: Moore 2004) Width of auditory filters measured with different techniques. The dashed curve shows the values of Zwicker (1961), the solid line the ERB N values which was measured using Patterson’s (1976) notched-noise method. Note the large deviations of Zwicker’s results at low frequencies, which are based on indirect measures.

24. ERB calculations Glasberg and Moore (1990) ERB N in Hz, f=frequency in kHz ERB N # in Hz, f=frequency in kHz

25. Psychophysical Tuning Curves The psychophysical tuning curves (PTC) were determined by measuring the masked detection thresholds for 6 sine tones which were presented 10 dB above sensation level (black circles). The masker was a sine tone as well which was varied in level (Data from Vogten, 1974). Fig.: Moore 2004

26. Amplitude Modulation Amplitude Modulation (AM) m=modulation index (m=0 no modulation, m=1 100% modulation), f c =frequency in Hz fc fc f c +g fc−g fc−g f Sidebands

27. Frequency Modulation (FM) Quasi-Frequency Modulation (QFM) For low modulation indexes, we can simulate the FM signal using quasi- frequency modulation (QFM), which consists of three sinusoids with appropriate amplitudes and phases: b=modulation index (b=0 no modulation, b=1 100% modulation), f c =carrier frequency in Hz, g=modulation frequency in Hz. with f c1 = f c2 −g, f c1 = f c3 +g AM and QFM differ only in phase, but not in amplitude. This feature makes the stimuli interesting for psychoacoustic experiments. If the listeners do not respond differently to both stimuli, the underlying processes are most likely not dependent on phase.

28. Amplitude vs. Frequency Modulation (Fig.: Moore 2004) Amplitude Modulation (AM) Frequency Modulation (FM)

29. Perception of Modulation For low modulation frequencies (e.g., g=5 Hz): –Amplitude modulation is perceived as loudness fluctuation –Frequency modulation is perceived as frequency fluctuation

30. Critical Modulation Frequency (CMF) (Fig.: Moore 2004) AM and QFM modulation thresholds for a 1-kHz sinusoidal tone as a function of the modulation frequency g. In both cases the threshold decreases with modulation frequency. The lower graph shows the ratio  /m. At 90 Hz, the so-called critical modulation frequency (CMF) the ratio becomes one. Above this frequency, which highly correlates with the width of the auditory filter, the auditory system becomes insensitive towards the phase of the components: ->The phase of different frequency components plays only a role if they are processed by the same frequency band!

31. Audibility of single partials of a complex tone (Fig.: Moore 2004, after data of Plomp, 1964a; Plomp and Mimpen, 1968). The x’s and open circles show the minimal separation frequency as a function of partial frequency above which the partial can be heard out with 75% accuracy. The long-dashed curve shows the ERB N function ×1.25. Basically, partials cannot be heard out, if its share the same auditory band with other partials.

32. Masking Patterns (Fig.: Moore 2004, data from Egan and Hake, 1950) Masking patterns (audiograms) for a narrow band of noise centered 410 Hz. The curves show the increase in threshold for a sinusoidal signal as a function of frequency. The number above each curve gives the SPL of the noise masker.

33. Excitation Patterns (Fig.: Moore 2004) Estimation of the excitation pattern from auditory filterbank data for a 1-kHz sinusoid. For each filter band the filter amplitude at the frequency of the test tone is determined (points a-e). Afterwards, these points are plotted at the center frequency of the corresponding filter, which represents the excitation pattern.

34. Excitation patterns (Fig.: Moore 2004) The figure shows the excitation patterns for the 1-kHz sinusoid for various sound pressure levels from 20 to 90 dB in steps of 10 dB.

35. Co-Modulation Masking Release f f f 1. The masker increases the detection threshold of the target 2. The threshold is not affected if a second masker is presented far enough in frequency 3. However, if we co-modulate both maskers, the detection threshold is lowered (co-modulation masking release) 1. 2. 3. target masker co-modulated masker

36. Co-Modulation Masking Release (Fig.: Hall et al. 1984) Test tone: 1-kHz sinusoid Masker: Band-pass filtered noise Masker components co-modulated Masker components NOT co-modulated

37. PET System Peripheral Ear Transfer Functions at the basilar membrane (different auditory filters or positions at the basilar membrane). (Fig.:Terhardt 1998)

38. Filter Response of CTF Filter Magnitude Phase of Cochlear Transfer Functions (Fig.:Terhardt 1998)

39. Temporary masking

40. Noise vs. tonal masker 410 Hz, 90 Hz bandwidth 400 Hz Egan and Hake (1950)