Advertisement

Discrimination of Complex Information in an Artificially Generated Auditory Space Using New Auditory Sensations

  • Manh Anh Do
Part of the NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series book series (volume 28)

Abstract

Wide beam broad band CTFM (continuous transmission frequency modulated) sonar with auditory binaural display was first proposed to be used as a sensory device for the blind person by Kay [16] in 1959. In this system the combined distance and direction of an object is coded in the form of rising pitch with increasing distance (frequency proportional to distance) and the binaural differences which could include that of time, amplitude, and frequency. Subsequent research to optimise this display resulted in a reduction of the interaural differences to that of amplitude only, and this difference measured in dB was designed to be proportional to the azimuthal angle as far as was physically possible [17, 28]. Thus the CTFM sonar with the binaural display (or briefly the binaural sonar) basically performs a one-to-one transform of the two dimensional real space-distance (range) and direction (azimuthal angle) of an object into a two dimensional auditory space described by frequency and interaural amplitude difference (IAD) of a tone. This auditory space was readily produced by means of a sensory aid for the blind [24, 18], and a sonar to locate fish [33, 34]. The evaluations of these two systems were reported in [2, 19, 34, 35, 5].

Keywords

Frequency Difference Frequency Resolution Basilar Membrane Complex Information Frequency Discrimination 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anke, Von D. “Blindenorientierungshielfen mit ultraschallortungs Verfahren und Horbarer Anzeige”, Acustica, Vol.30, pp.67–80, 1974.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arasian, P. “Evaluation of the Binaural Sensory Aid for the Blind”, A.F.B. Res. Bull., Vol.26, pp.35, 1973.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bainbridge, R. “The Speed of Swimming of Fish as Related to Size and to the Frequency and Amplitude of the Tail Beat”, J.Exp. Biol., Vol.35, pp.109–133, 1958.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Do, M.A. and Kay, L. “Resolution in an Artificially Generated Multiple Object Auditory Space Using New Auditory Sensations”, Acustica, Vol.36, pp.9–15, 1976/77.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Do, M.A. “Perception of Spatial Information in a Multiple Object Auditory Space”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fletcher, H. “Auditory Patterns”, Review of Modern Physics, Vol.12, pp.47–65, 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fletcher, H. “Speech and Hearing in Communication”, D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc., New York, 1953.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenwood, D.D. “Auditory Masking and the Critical Band”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol.33, pp.248, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldstein, J.L. “Auditory Nonlinearity”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol.41, pp.676–688, 1967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hall, J.L. “Auditory Distortion Products, f2-f1, and 2f1-f2”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,Vol.51, pp.1863–1871, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall, J.L. “Monaural Phase Effect: Cancellation and Reinforcement of Distortion Products f2-f1 and 2f1-f2”, J.Acoust. Soc.Am., Vol.51, pp.1872–1881, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamilton, P.M. “Noise Masked Threshold on a Function of Tonal Duration and Masking Noise Bandwidth”, J.Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol.29, pp.506–511, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harden Jones, F.R. “Fish Migration”, Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd., London, pp.230–234, 1967.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hawkins, J.E. and Steven, S.S. “The Masking of Pure Tone and Speech by White Noise”, J.Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol.22, pp.6–13, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hester, F.J. “Identification of Biological Sonar Targets from Body Motion Doppler Shifts”, Symposium on Marine Bio-Acoustics, Pergamon Press, New York, Vol.2, pp.59–74, 1967.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kay, L. “A New or Improved Apparatus for Furnishing Information as to Position of Objects”, Patent Specification No.978741, The Patent Office, London, 1959.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kay, L. “Blind Aid”, Patent Specification No.3366922, United States Patent Office, Washington, D.C., 1965.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kay, L. “A Sonar Aid to Enhance Spatial Perception of the Blind: Engineering Design and Evaluation”, Radio and Electron. Eng., Vol.44, pp.605, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kay, L. “Sonic Glasses for the Blind — Presentation of Evaluation Data”, A.F.B. Res.Bull., Vol.26, pp.35, 1973.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kay, L. and Do, M.A. “An Artificially Generated Multiple Object Auditory Space for Use where Vision is Impaired”, Acustica, Vol.36, pp.1–8, 1976/77.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lichte, W.H. and Gray, R.F. “The Influence of Overtone Structure on the Pitch of Complex Tones”, J. Exp.Psychol., Vol.49, pp.431–436, 1955.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Licklider, J.C.R. “Auditory Frequency Analysis”, Symposium on Information Theory, The Royal Institution, London, 1955, Butterworths Scientific Publications, London, 1956.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Madison, D.M. et al “Migratory Movements of Adult Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhyn Chus Verka) in Coastal British Columbia as revealed by Ultrasonic Tracking”, J.Fish. Res.B. Can., Vol.29, pp.1025–1033, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martin, G. “Electronics and Transducers for an Ultrasonic Blind Mobility Aid”, M.E. Thesis, University of Canterbury, 1969.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Plomb, R. “The Ear as a Frequency Analyser”, J.Acoustic. Soc. Am., Vol.36, pp.1628–1636, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plomb, R. and Levelt, W.J.M. “Tonal Consonance and Critical Bandwidth”, J. Acoust. Soc.Am., Vol.38, pp.548–559, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plomb, R. and Steeneken, H.J.M. “Interference Between Two Simple Tones”, J. Acoust. Sop. Am., Vol.43, pp.883–884, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rowell, D. “Auditory Display of Spatial Information”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, 1970.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scharf, B. “Critical Bands and the Loudness of Complex Sounds Near Threshold”, J.Acoust.Soc.Am., Vol.31, pp.365–390, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scharf, B. “Loudness of Complex Sounds as a Function of the Number of Components”, J.Acoust.Soc.Am., Vol.31, pp.783–785, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simmons, James A. “Echolocation in Bats: Signal Processing of Echoes for Target Range”, Science, Vol.171, pp.925–928, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Simmons, James A. “The resolution of Target Range by Echo-locating Bats”, J.Acoust.Soc.Am., Vol.54, pp.157–173, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smith, R.P. and Kay, L. “A Fish Finding Sonar Utilizing an Audio Information Display”, Digest of Technical Papers, I.E.E.E., Ocean Conf., Panama City, Florida, pp.113, 1970.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smith, R.P. “Transduction and Audible Displays for Broad Band Sonar Systems”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, 1973.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Steven, S.S. “Pitch Discrimination, Mels and Koch’s Contention”, J.Acoust.Soc.Am., Vol.26, pp.1075–1077, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Suga, N. “Analysis of Frequency Modulated Sounds by Auditory Neurones of Echolocating Bats”, J.Physiology, Vol.179, pp.26–53, 1965.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Suga, N. “Responses of Critical Auditory Neurones to Frequency Modulated Sounds in Echolocating Bats”, Nature, London, Vol.206, pp.890–891, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Suga, N. “Analysis of Frequency Modulated and Complex Sounds by Single Auditory Neurones of Bats”, J. Physiology, Vol.198, pp.51–80, 1968.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Swets, J.A. et al “On the Width of Critical Bands”, J.Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol.34, pp.108–113, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Von Bekesy, G. “Experiments in Hearing”, McGraw Hill, New York, 1960.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wegel, R.L. and Lane, C.F. “The Auditory Masking of One Pure Tone by Another and its Probable Relation to the Dynamics of the Inner Ear”, Phys. Rev., Vol.23, pp.266–285, 1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wever, E.G. “Beats and Related Phenomena Resulting from the Simultaneous Sounding of Two Tones-I”, Psychological Review, Vol.36, pp.402–418, 1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wever, E.G. “Beats and Related Phenomena Resulting from the Simultaneous Sounding of Two Tones-II”, Psychological Review, Vol.36, pp.512–523, 1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wever, E.G. “Theory of Hearing”, John Wiley, New York, 1949,Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zwicker, E. et al “Critical Band-width in Loudness Summation”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol.29, pp.548–577, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zwicker, E. “Subdivision of the Audible Frequency Range into Critical Bands”, J.Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol.33, pp.248, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manh Anh Do
    • 1
  1. 1.Radio Engineering LimitedDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations