...
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America >Sources of variation in profile analysis. II. Component spacing, dynamic changes, and roving level
【24h】

Sources of variation in profile analysis. II. Component spacing, dynamic changes, and roving level

机译:轮廓分析的变化来源。二。组件间距,动态变化和粗纱水平

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Profile-analysis experiments have typically employed static profiles with constant frequency components spaced at equal intervals along a logarithmic frequency axis. Most periodic, naturally occurring stimuli, however, have components that are harmonically related and vary dynamically in time. One goal of these studies was to determine whether amplitude-increment detection thresholds are different in dynamic, harmonically spaced profiles compared to those for static-log profiles, and why such differences might exist. A second goal was to determine the impact of roving levels (within-trial variation of level). Thresholds for static-log profiles were, on average, 8.7 dB lower than for static-harmonic profiles. A traditional filter-bank model could not account for this result. No consistent effect of dynamic contour (an exponential rising frequency glide) was observed. Thresholds were consistently poorer by 4 to 7 dB when the level was roved, but the differences in thresholds among the different profiles varied little. It is proposed that the higher thresholds observed in static-harmonic profiles may be accounted for by the more intense pitch strength associated with the harmonic profiles.
机译:轮廓分析实验通常采用具有沿对数频率轴以相等间隔隔开的恒定频率分量的静态轮廓。然而,大多数周期性的,自然发生的刺激具有与谐波相关且随时间动态变化的分量。这些研究的目的之一是确定动态,谐波间隔轮廓中的振幅增量检测阈值与静态对数轮廓中的振幅增量检测阈值是否不同,以及为什么存在这种差异。第二个目标是确定粗纱水平的影响(水平的试验变化)。静态对数轮廓的阈值平均比静态谐波轮廓的阈值低8.7 dB。传统的滤波器组模型无法解决此问题。没有观察到动态轮廓的一致影响(指数上升频率滑移)。调整音量时,阈值始终较差4至7 dB,但不同配置文件之间的阈值差异变化很小。提出在静谐波轮廓中观察到的较高阈值可以由与谐波轮廓相关联的更强的音调强度来解释。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号