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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Carney LH, Abrams KS, Koch K-J, Zilany MSA, Idrobo F (2009). Behavioral and physiological studies of amplitude-modulation detection. Abstract, ARO, 801
Dent ML, Klump GM, Schwenzfeier C (2002) Temporal modulation transfer functions in the barn owl (Tyto alba). J Comp Physiol A 187:937–943
Dooling RJ, Searcy MH (1981) Amplitude modulation thresholds for the parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus). J Comp Physiol 143:383–388
Dooling RJ, Okanoya K, Brown SD (1989) Speech perception by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): the voiced-voiceless distinction. Percept Psychophys 46:65–71
Ewert SD, Dau T (2000) Characterizing frequency selectivity for envelope fluctuations. J Acoust Soc Am 108:1181–1196
Ewert SD, Verhey JL, Dau T (2002) Spectro-temporal processing in the envelope-frequency domain. J Acoust Soc Am 112:2921–2931
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 29:253–277
Henderson D, Salvi R, Pavek G, Hamernik R (1984) Amplitude modulation thresholds in chinchillas with high-frequency hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 75:1177–1183
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 120:98–105
Klump GM, Okanoya K (1991) Temporal modulation transfer functions in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). I. Psychophysical modulation detection thresholds. J Comp Physiol A 164:531–538
Levitt H (1971) Transformed up-down methods in psychophysics. J Acoust Soc Am 49:467–477
Moody DB (1994) Detection and discrimination of amplitude-modulated signal by macaque monkeys. J Acoust Soc Am 95:3499–3510
Nelson PC, Carney LH (2006) Cues for masked amplitude-modulation detection. J Acoust Soc Am 120:978–990
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 277:37–43
Strickland EA, Viemeister NF (1996) Cues for discrimination of envelopes. J Acoust Soc Am 99:3638–3646
Viemeister NF (1979) Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am 66:1364–1380
Acknowledgments
Kelly-Jo Koch, Paula Aronson, Asia Ingram, Tiara Jackson, Erin Keegan, Hannah Rasmussen, Erin Schnellinger, and Whitney Williams assisted with data collection and analysis. The Dent Lab at SUNY-Buffalo provided us with invaluable advice and information (Supported by NIDCD-R01-001641).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this paper
Cite this paper
Carney, L.H., Ketterer, A.D., Abrams, K.S., Schwarz, D.M., Idrobo, F. (2013). Detection Thresholds for Amplitude Modulations of Tones in Budgerigar, Rabbit, and Human. In: Moore, B., Patterson, R., Winter, I., Carlyon, R., Gockel, H. (eds) Basic Aspects of Hearing. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 787. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1590-9_43
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1590-9_43
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-1589-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-1590-9
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)