Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Factors Influencing Stream Segregation Based on Interaural Phase Difference Cues

  • Nicholas R. Haywood*
  • , David McAlpine
  • , Deborah Vickers
  • , Brian Roberts
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3   Link opens in a new tab Citations (SciVal)
18 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Interaural time differences are often considered a weak cue for stream segregation. We investigated this claim with headphone-presented pure tones differing in a related form of interaural configuration—interaural phase differences (ΔIPD)—or/and in frequency (ΔF). In experiment 1, sequences comprised 5 × ABA– repetitions (A and B = 80-ms tones, “–” = 160-ms silence), and listeners reported whether integration or segregation was heard. Envelope shape was varied but remained constant across all tones within a trial. Envelopes were either quasi-trapezoidal or had a fast attack and slow release (FA-SR) or vice versa (SA-FR). The FA-SR envelope caused more segregation than SA-FR in a task where only ΔIPD cues were present, but not in a corresponding ΔF-only task. In experiment 2, interstimulus interval (ISI) was varied (0–60 ms) between FA-SR tones. ΔF-based segregation decreased with increasing ISI, whereas ΔIPD-based segregation increased. This suggests that binaural temporal integration may limit segregation at short ISIs. In another task, ΔF and ΔIPD cues were presented alone or in combination. Here, ΔIPD-based segregation was greatly reduced, suggesting ΔIPD-based segregation is highly sensitive to experimental context. Experiments 1–2 demonstrate that ΔIPD can promote segregation in optimized stimuli/tasks. Experiment 3 employed a task requiring integration for good performance. Listeners detected a delay on the final four B tones of an 8 × ABA– sequence. Although performance worsened with increasing ΔF, increasing ΔIPD had only a marginal impact. This suggests that, even in stimuli optimized for ΔIPD-based segregation, listeners remained mostly able to disregard ΔIPD when segregation was detrimental to performance.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-17
Number of pages17
JournalTrends in Hearing
Volume28
Early online date10 Dec 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Dec 2024

Bibliographical note

Copyright © The Author(s) 2024. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Funding

This study was supported by an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (FL160100108) awarded to David McAlpine, a Medical Research Council Senior Fellowship (MR/S002537/1) and National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research (201608) and Biomedical Research Centre (203312) awarded to Deborah Vickers, and by Aston University’s Visiting Scholars’ Scheme, which part-funded a research visit by Brian Roberts to Nick Haywood at the Australian Hearing Hub, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, in November and December 2019.

Keywords

  • binaural hearing
  • auditory scene analysis
  • interaural phase differences
  • binaural integration
  • stream segregation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Factors Influencing Stream Segregation Based on Interaural Phase Difference Cues'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this