Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 219

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Psychoacoustic and phonetic temporal processing in normal and hearing-impaired listeners

Tyler, Richard S., Summerfield, Quentin, Wood, Elizabeth J., Fernandes, Mariano A.·1982·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Abstract

Four measures of auditory temporal processing were obtained from 16 normals and 16 individuals with a hearing loss of heterogeneous origin. These measures were: (1) temporal integration—the difference in detection thresholds between signals of 10- and 1000-ms duration (which was determined to provide an estimate of the ability to integrate energy over time), (2) gap detection—the shortest duration of silence between two noise bursts that can be discriminated from an uninterrupted noise, (3) temporal difference limen—the increment in duration necessary to detect a difference in the duration of a noise burst, (4) gap difference limen—the increment in duration necessary to detect a difference in the duration of a silent interval between two noise bursts. Each measure was obtained for stimuli centered both at 500 and at 4000 Hz using a three-alternative forced-choice procedure. In addition, measures of identification and discrimination were obtained for two sets of synthetic speech syllables varying chiefly in a temporal parameter, voice-onset-time, from /ba/ to /pa/ and from /bi/ to /pi/. Finally, speech identification in noise was measured with the FAAF test. Most of the hearing-impaired listeners displayed poorer temporal analysis than the normals on all of the psychoacoustical tasks, regardless of whether the two groups were compared at similar sound pressure levels or at similar sensation levels. Although the hearing-impaired listeners displayed a reduction in the ability to discriminate subphonemic cues for the voiced–voiceless distinction, their identification of that distinction in stop consonants appeared to be normal. The hearing-impaired group made about twice as many errors as did the normals on each of the consonant features of place, manner, and voicing when identifying speech in noise. Increased temporal difference limen and longer gap-detection thresholds were found to correlate significantly with reduced speech intelligibility in noise, even when the effects of the pure-tone threshold loss were partialed out.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/1.388254

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 219

Metadata

Authors
Tyler, R. S., Summerfield, Q., Wood, E. J., & Fernandes, M. A.
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Published
1982-09-01
Volume
72
Issue
3
Pages
740-752
ISSN
  • 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8524
OpenAlex
W1998871200
Cited by
219
References
0
FWCI
5.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Psychoacoustic and phonetic temporal processing in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1121/1.388254
The paper
Tyler, R. S., Summerfield, Q., Wood, E. J., & Fernandes, M. A. (1982). Psychoacoustic and phonetic temporal processing in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.388254

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.