Audio Coding pp 173-198 | Cite as

Perceptual Model

  • Yuli You


Although data model and quantization have been discussed in detail in the earlier chapters as the tool for effectively removing perceptual irrelevance, a question still remains as to which part of the source signal is perceptually irrelevant. Feasible answers to this question obviously depend on the underlying application. For audio coding, perceptual irrelevance is ultimately determined by the human ear, so perceptual models need to be built that mimic the human auditory system so as to indicate to an audio coder which parts of the source audio signal are perceptually irrelevant, hence can be removed without audible artifacts.


Quantization Noise Basilar Membrane Oval Window Critical Band Perceptual Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aertsen, A.M.H.J., Johannesma, P.I.M.: Spectro-temporal receptive fields of auditory neurons in the grassfrog. Biological Cybernetics 38, 223–234 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 21.
    Glasberg, B.R., Moore, B.C.: Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hearing Research 47, 103–138 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 23.
    Hall, J.L.: Auditory psychophysics for coding applications. In: V.K. Madisetti, D. Williams (eds.) The Digital Signal Processing Handbook, pp. 39.1–39.25. CRC, Boca Raton (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 24.
    Hellman, R.: Asymmetry of masking between noise and tone. Perception and Psychophysics 11, 241–246 (1972)Google Scholar
  5. 32.
    Jayant, N., Johnston, J., Safranek, R.: Signal compression based on models of human perception. Proceedings of the IEEE 81, 1385–1422 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 34.
    Johnston, J.D.: Transform coding of audio signals using perceptual noise criteria. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 6(2), 314–323 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 52.
    Miller, G.A.: Sensitivity to changes in the intensity of white noise and its relation to masking and loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 19, 609–619 (1947)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 53.
    Moore, B.C.: An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. Academic, London (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 55.
    MPEG: Coding of moving pictures and associated audio for digital storage media at up to about 1.5 Mbit/s – Part 3: Audio, vol. 11172-3. ISO/IEC (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 60.
    MPEG: Information technology: Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information Part 7: Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), vol. 13818-7. ISO/IEC (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 67.
    Oppenheim, A.V., Schafer, R.W., Yoder, M.T., Padgett, W.T.: Discrete-Time Signal Processing. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 70.
    Patterson, R.D.: Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 59(3), 640–654 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 71.
    Patterson, R.D., Allerhand, M., Giguere, C.: Time-domain modeling of peripheral auditory processing: A modular architecture and software platform. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 98(4), 1890–1894 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 72.
    Patterson, R.D., Moore, B.C.J.: Auditory filters and excitation patterns as representations of frequency resolution. In: B.C.J. Moore (ed.) Frequency Selectivity in Hearing, pp. 123–177. Academic, London (1986)Google Scholar
  15. 73.
    Patterson, R.D., Nimmo-Smith, I., Weber, D.L., Milroy, R.: The deterioration of hearing with age: Frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 72(6), 1788–1803 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 84.
    Schroeder, M.R., Atal, B.S., Hall, J.L.: Optimizing digital speech coders by exploiting masking properties of the human ear. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66(6), 1647–1652 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 91.
    Terhardt, E.: Calculating virtual pitch. Hearing research 1(1(2)), 155–182 (1979)Google Scholar
  18. 101.
    Zwicker, E.: Subdivision of the audible frequency range into critical bands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 33(2), 248–248 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 102.
    Zwicker, E., Fastl, H.: Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models. Springer, Berlin (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer US 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuli You
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Minnesota in Twin CitiesMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations