Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Backward masking: detection versus recognition.

D E Bland, D R Perrott

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
    |April 1, 1978
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Cognitive restoration of reversed speech.

    Nature·1999
    Same author

    Aurally aided visual search under virtual and free-field listening conditions.

    Human factors·1996
    Same author

    Auditory and visual localization performance in a sequential discrimination task.

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America·1993
    Same author

    Discrimination of moving events which accelerate or decelerate over the listening interval.

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America·1993
    Same author

    Auditory apparent motion in the free field: the effects of stimulus duration and separation.

    Perception & psychophysics·1992
    Same author

    Minimum audible movement angle as a function of the azimuth and elevation of the source.

    Human factors·1992
    Same journal

    High-resolution depth estimation for multiple wideband sources in deep sea via sparse Bayesian learninga).

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America·2026
    Same journal

    Depression markers in speech: An approach based on tract variables dynamics.

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America·2026
    Same journal

    The oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau) alters active and diurnal calling amid vessel noise in New York City.

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America·2026
    Same journal

    Experimental noise characterisation of phase-locked tandem-rotor in edgewise flight.

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America·2026
    Same journal

    The tune-text-temporal synergy: Prosodic effects of final segmental weakening in Neapolitan.

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America·2026
    Same journal

    Monitoring vessel movement above critical offshore infrastructure using distributed acoustic sensing.

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America·2026
    See all related articles

    Backward masking for auditory recognition requires significantly longer target-mask intervals than for detection. Training improves performance in both masking types, and mask proximity affects recognition more than detection.

    Area of Science:

    • Auditory perception
    • Psychophysics
    • Cognitive psychology

    Background:

    • Backward masking is a phenomenon where a stimulus presented shortly after a target can impair perception of that target.
    • Distinguishing between detection masking (identifying presence) and recognition masking (identifying content) is crucial for understanding auditory processing.
    • Previous research has not fully elucidated the differences in temporal dynamics and stimulus parameters between these two masking paradigms.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To compare the temporal masking effects in backward detection masking versus backward recognition masking.
    • To investigate the influence of mask proximity on both detection and recognition masking.
    • To determine if procedural differences alone explain the observed disparities between detection and recognition masking.

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Methods:

    • Experiment 1: Contrasted backward detection masking and backward recognition masking using identical tonal targets and maskers, varying the target-mask interval.
    • Experiment 2: Examined the effect of a remote masker versus an adjacent masker on both detection and recognition masking.
    • Performance was measured as the target-mask interval required for 75% correct identification.

    Main Results:

    • The target-mask interval for 75% correct recognition was approximately eight times longer than that for detection.
    • Training led to generalized performance improvements in both detection and recognition masking conditions.
    • A remote masker resulted in greater backward recognition masking but less backward detection masking compared to an adjacent masker.

    Conclusions:

    • The temporal demands of auditory recognition masking are substantially greater than those of detection masking.
    • Differences in backward masking effects between detection and recognition are not solely attributable to procedural variations.
    • Mask proximity differentially impacts backward recognition and detection masking, suggesting distinct underlying neural mechanisms.