Detection Thresholds for Amplitude Modulations of Tones in Budgerigar, Rabbit, and Human

  • Laurel H. Carney
  • Angela D. Ketterer
  • Kristina S. Abrams
  • Douglas M. Schwarz
  • Fabio Idrobo
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (volume 787)

Abstract

Envelope fluctuations of complex sounds carry information that is ­essential for many types of discrimination and for detection in noise. To study the neural representation of envelope information and mechanisms for processing of this temporal aspect of sounds, it is useful to identify an animal model that can ­sensitively detect amplitude modulations (AM). Low modulation frequencies, which dominate speech sounds, are of particular interest. Yet, most animal ­models studied previously are relatively insensitive to AM at low modulation ­frequencies. Rabbits have high thresholds for low-frequency modulations, ­especially for tone carriers. Rhesus macaques are less sensitive than humans to low-frequency ­modulations of wideband noise (O’Conner et al. Hear Res 277, 37–43, 2011). Rats and ­chinchilla also have higher thresholds than humans for amplitude ­modulations of noise (Kelly et al. J Comp Psychol 120, 98–105, 2006; Henderson et al. J Acoust Soc Am 75, ­1177–1183, 1984). In contrast, the budgerigar has thresholds for AM detection of wideband noise similar to those of human listeners at low ­modulation frequencies (Dooling and Searcy. Percept Psychophys 46, 65–71, 1981). A ­one-interval, two-alternative operant conditioning procedure was used to estimate AM ­detection thresholds for 4-kHz tone carriers at low modulation ­frequencies (4–256 Hz). Budgerigar thresholds are comparable to those of human subjects in a comparable task. Implications of these comparative results for temporal coding of complex sounds are discussed. Comparative results for masked AM detection are also presented.

References

  1. Carney LH, Abrams KS, Koch K-J, Zilany MSA, Idrobo F (2009). Behavioral and physiological studies of amplitude-modulation detection. Abstract, ARO, 801Google Scholar
  2. Dent ML, Klump GM, Schwenzfeier C (2002) Temporal modulation transfer functions in the barn owl (Tyto alba). J Comp Physiol A 187:937–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dooling RJ, Searcy MH (1981) Amplitude modulation thresholds for the parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus). J Comp Physiol 143:383–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dooling RJ, Okanoya K, Brown SD (1989) Speech perception by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): the voiced-voiceless distinction. Percept Psychophys 46:65–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ewert SD, Dau T (2000) Characterizing frequency selectivity for envelope fluctuations. J Acoust Soc Am 108:1181–1196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ewert SD, Verhey JL, Dau T (2002) Spectro-temporal processing in the envelope-frequency domain. J Acoust Soc Am 112:2921–2931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gourevitch B, Eggermont JJ (2010) Maximum decoding abilities of temporal patterns and synchronized firings: application to auditory neurons responding to click trains and amplitude modulated white noise. J Comp Neurosci 29:253–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Henderson D, Salvi R, Pavek G, Hamernik R (1984) Amplitude modulation thresholds in chinchillas with high-frequency hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 75:1177–1183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kelly JB, Cooke JE, Gilbride PC, Mitchell C, Zhang H (2006) Behavioral limits of auditory temporal resolution in the rat: amplitude modulation and duration discrimination. J Comp Psychol 120:98–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klump GM, Okanoya K (1991) Temporal modulation transfer functions in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). I. Psychophysical modulation detection thresholds. J Comp Physiol A 164:531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Levitt H (1971) Transformed up-down methods in psychophysics. J Acoust Soc Am 49:467–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moody DB (1994) Detection and discrimination of amplitude-modulated signal by macaque monkeys. J Acoust Soc Am 95:3499–3510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nelson PC, Carney LH (2006) Cues for masked amplitude-modulation detection. J Acoust Soc Am 120:978–990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Conner KN, Johnson JS, Niwa M, Noreiga NC, Marshall EA, Sutter ML (2011) Amplitude modulation detection as a function of modulation frequency and stimulus duration: comparisons between macaques and humans. Hear Res 277:37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Strickland EA, Viemeister NF (1996) Cues for discrimination of envelopes. J Acoust Soc Am 99:3638–3646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Viemeister NF (1979) Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am 66:1364–1380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurel H. Carney
    • 1
  • Angela D. Ketterer
    • 1
  • Kristina S. Abrams
    • 1
  • Douglas M. Schwarz
    • 1
  • Fabio Idrobo
    • 2
  1. 1.Departments of Biomedical Engineering and Neurobiology & AnatomyUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations