Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Hearing
Hearing Research 235 (2008) 125–133
Research
www.elsevier.com/locate/heares

Research paper

Binaural perception of the modulation depth of AM signals

Edward Ozimek a,*, Jacek Konieczny a, Toshio Sone b
a
Institute of Acoustics, A. Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 85, 61-614 Poznań, Poland
b
Akita Prefectural University, Faculty of Electronic and Information Systems, 84-4 Ebinokuchi, Tsuchiya, Honjo City 015-0055, Japan

Received 5 May 2006; received in revised form 26 October 2007; accepted 29 October 2007
Available online 13 November 2007

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the binaurally perceived modulation depth (m) of the low rate amplitude modulated (AM)
signals, under conditions of their dichotic presentation, i.e., when the AM signals presented to the left and the right ear had different
modulation depths. The modulation depth was determined as a point of subjective equality between the sensations of the modulation
depth of AM signals presented to the left and right ear, using a one-up, one-down adaptive procedure. Measurements were made for
the carrier frequencies (fc) of 250, 1000, and 4000 Hz, and the modulation frequency (fm) of 4 Hz. Experimental data showed that,
for sufficiently small interaural difference in modulation depth (Dm), the perceived modulation approximated the mean of the modulation
depths presented to the left and the right ear. However, for moderate and large Dm, the binaurally perceived modulation was lower than
the mean of ml and mr and the steepness of the function m = f(Dm) gradually decreased with an increase of Dm. Results of the calculation
of the binaurally perceived modulation depth, obtained on the assumption of binaural loudness summation, were found to be consistent
within the limit of standard deviation, with the experimental data for relatively wide range of Dm.
Ó 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Binaural perception; AM signals; Loudness summation

1. Introduction ments of the modulation depth of AM signals (Houtgast

Among different aspects of binaural processing, an
important problem is the binaural interaction of amplitude
modulated (AM) signals and its effect on their perception.
The problem is relevant among others to the investigation
of the intelligibility of speech in a room based on measure-
Abbreviations: A, amplitude; AM, amplitude modulation; c, constant;
fc, fm, carrier and modulation frequencies; L, loudness; LSO, lateral su-
perior olive; m = f(Dm), modulation-matching function; ml, mr, modula-
tion indexes on the left and on the right ear; mms, modulation depth of the
matching stimulus; mw, resultant modulation depth; MSO, medial supe-
rior olive; p, exponent; r, correlation coefficient; S, slope of the modu-
lation-matching function; SAM, sinusoidal amplitude modulation; SD,
standard deviation; SOC, superior olivary complex; Dm, the interaural
differences in modulation
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +48 61 8295133; fax: +48 61 8295123.
E-mail addresses: ozimaku@amu.edu.pl (E. Ozimek), koniaku@
amu.edu.pl (J. Konieczny), tsone@akita-pu.ac.jp (T. Sone).
and Steeneken, 1985; Ozimek and Se˛k, 1996). The Hout-
gast and Steneken’s method consists in determination of
the so-called modulation transfer function, which charac-
terizes the decrease in the AM index in a room. However,
such a method does not take into account the influence of
the interaural differences in the modulation of AM signals.
This may be a source of discrepancy between objectively
measured and subjectively estimated changes in the modu-
lation index. The problem is also relevant for the loudness
meter design (Zwicker and Zwicker, 1991), simulation of
auditory virtual environments, an auditory scene analysis,
a space sound reproduction, etc. (Blauert, 1983; Bregman,
1990). While there is quite a lot of data on the monaural
processing of AM signals little is known about the binaural
processing of these signals. Deeper experimental insight
into how the binaural system process sounds with tempo-
rally varied intensity and transforms it to psychoacoustical
sensations is of particular importance. The present study

0378-5955/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.heares.2007.10.008
126 E. Ozimek et al. / Hearing Research 235 (2008) 125–133
addresses the questions related to the binaurally perceived
modulation depth of the AM signals with a low modula-
tion frequency (4 Hz), when the modulation indexes on
the left (ml) and on the right ear (mr) are different. More
specifically, the question is how the binaurally perceived
modulation depth depends on the interaural difference in
modulation depth or is the perceived modulation depth
equal to the mean of the modulation indexes presented to
the left and the right ear? These questions, which have
not received much attention in binaural investigations to
date, are the basic ones posed in this study. The answers
to these questions would extend the knowledge on the pro-
cessing of dynamic interaural intensity differences by the
binaural system.
The characteristic feature of the AM signal perception,
with a low rate of modulation, is a dynamic change in loud-
ness. The sensory quality associated with amplitude modu-
lation at a low modulation rate is often referred as the
‘‘fluctuation strength” (Zwicker and Fastl, 1999). The basic
issue of the present study is the subjective estimation of the
modulation depth of AM signal based on the perception of
loudness changes resulting from changes in the modulation
index of AM signal. In our study, this perception took
place in the binaural scenario which resulted in complex
interaural interaction of AM signals. One of the basic ele-
ment of this interaction was the binaural loudness summa-
tion of the signals presented to the left and right ear. So far
some aspects of the binaural loudness summation have
been studied but for steady sounds. Hellman and Zwislocki
(1963), and also Marks (1978) using pure tones, reported
perfect binaural summation of loudness, whereas others
applying pure tones and bands of noise have reported less
than perfect summation (Scharf and Fishken, 1970) or
have questioned such a summation. Reynolds and Stevens
(1960) showed that at low levels the monaural signal has to
be increased by only about 3 dB to match the loudness of
the diotic signal, however, at high levels the required
increase is about 12 dB. Moore and Glasberg (2007) devel-
oped the binaural loudness model, based on the idea of
inhibitory interactions between the outputs of the two ears,
which predicted that a sound presented binaurally (dioti-
cally) was 1.5 times as loud as the same sound presented
monaurally. Some authors have shown that the amount
of binaural summation of loudness depends on the mode
of presentation (diotic or dichotic), interaural level differ-
ences, spectral and temporal distribution, etc. (Algom
et al., 1989; Zwicker and Zwicker, 1991). These data show
that the mechanism of the binaural loudness summation is
still uncertain and its explanation needs further study.
Up to now, the data on the processing of AM signals in
the scenario of their binaural perception have been very
limited, while binaural loudness summation or binaurally
perceived modulation depth have not been studied at all.
The dynamic coding of the envelope of AM signals is
important for better understanding of the signal processing
at higher levels of the auditory system. The investigation
undertaken at the present study substantially extends that
reported by Ozimek and Sone (1997) and aims at determi-
nation of the perceived modulation depth when two AM
signals with different modulation depths are presented bin-
aurally. The second aspect of the study is related to the cal-
culation of the binaurally perceived modulation depth
assuming the binaural loudness summation and supposi-
tion that the peak loudness, proportional to AM peak
amplitudes, is a basic cue for evaluation of the perceived
modulation depth. Comparison of the calculated and
experimental data have shown their consistency for wide
range of the interaural difference in modulation depth.
2. Experiment
2.1. Procedure
The experimental procedure consisted in adjusting by
the subject the binaurally perceived modulation depth of
the matching stimulus (mms) to that of the test stimulus,
according to a one-up, one-down adaptive procedure.
Two successive AM stimuli were presented on each trial:
the matching stimulus with equal modulation depths at
the two ears and the test stimulus (target) with the same
(diotic conditions) or different (dichotic conditions) modu-
lation depths at the left and the right ear. The first trials
started with the modulation index mms of 10% above the
average modulation depth of the target so that the subject
could easily notice the difference in AM modulation
between the matching and the target signals. The modula-
tion depth of the matching stimulus was varied by changing
the amplitude ratio of the modulator to the carrier at a con-
stant power of the SAM stimuli. It was varied in 1-dB steps
until four turnpoints were reached, and then in 0.5 dB steps
for the rest of the run. A single run was made of a set of 40
trials. For each run, at least eight turnpoints were obtained.
The average of the eight turnpoints determined the single
estimate (threshold) of the binaural modulation depth.
The final threshold value was calculated as an arithmetic
mean of five single estimates taken from 5 runs. In a few
cases when the standard deviation of the final threshold
exceeded 20% of the mean value, three additional runs were
performed and all estimates were averaged. A software pre-
caution was taken against possible overmodulation of the
matching stimulus (mms 6 1) and to compensate for varia-
tions in overall intensity level of AM signals as a function
of modulation (Viemeister, 1979). To prevent distraction
of the subject’s attention during the run, no feedback indi-
cating the correct/wrong responses was provided.
To check for possible bias effects, two pilot experiments
were performed, in which the subject started with the mod-
ulation index mms of 10% below the average modulation
depth of the target and in which the modulation depth of
the target was varied (both for diotic and dichotic presen-
tations) to adjust to the constant modulation depth of the
matching stimulus. No systematic or significant differences
were found between the data obtained in the pilot experi-
ments and those in the basic study.
 E. Ozimek et al. / Hearing Research 235 (2008) 125–133
2.2. Stimuli
The stimuli were the AM signals presented binaurally.
They are generally described by the formula
s(t) = [1 + mcos(2pfmt)]cos(2pfct), where m (0 6 m 6 1) is
the modulation index (modulation depth), fm and fc are
the modulation and carrier frequencies, respectively. The
factor of [1 + mcos(2pfmt)] is called the instantaneous
amplitude of s(t). The AM signal is characterized by a spec-
trum with three components representing the carrier fre-
quency and the two symmetrically located side bands
corresponding to the sum and the difference of the carrier
and the modulation frequencies. At a low modulation fre-
quency considered in this paper, all components of the AM
stimulus fell within the narrow frequency band, yielding
the slow intensity fluctuation, which was perceived as a sen-
sation of fluctuating loudness. The low modulation fre-
quency chosen coincided well with the prominent
envelope modulation (4 Hz) in speech (Houtgast et al.,
1980).
The stimuli were generated digitally and converted to
analog signals with a two-channel, 16-bit DA converter
at a sampling rate of 40 kHz and then low-pass filtered at
10 kHz (Tucker-Davis Technologies III, TDT). The overall
duration of each stimulus was 1000 ms, including 20 ms
raised-cosine rise/fall ramps. The stimuli in each trial were
separated by a 600-ms interval and presented in a random
order in a run. They were presented binaurally to the sub-
jects through Sennheiser HDA 200 headphones. Special
care was taken to accurately calibrate the two binaural
channels in order to ensure that their parameters would
be the same over the wide range of frequencies tested.
Measurements of estimates of the modulation depth per-
ceived by the subject were made for the modulation fre-
quency of 4 Hz, and sinusoidal carrier frequencies of 250,
1000, and 4000 Hz, at an equal overall loudness level of
70 phons (based on the rms of the whole signal) for all
SAM stimuli tested. The overall loudness level corre-
sponded to 72, 70 and 67 dB SPL (an average across sub-
jects) for carrier frequencies 250, 1000 and 4000 Hz,
respectively. These levels were determined on the basis of
binaural loudness matching procedure (Schlauch, 1994).
The starting phases of the sines of the carrier and modula-
tor, for both the target and the matching stimuli, were set
at zero. The modulation rate and carrier frequencies of
the matching stimuli were equal to those of the target ones.
In dichotic listening conditions, four different mr values
Table 1
The modulation depth values presented to the left ear – ml (bold-italic
data) for different combination of mr and Dm
Interaural difference in modulation depth Dm (%)
0 20 40 60 80 90 100
mr values (%) 0 – 20 40 60 80 90 100
10 10 30 50 70 90 100 – accuracy in evaluating the binaurally perceived modulation
20 20 40 60 80 100 – –
60 60 80 100 – – – –
127
(modulation depths at the right ear): 0%, 10%, 20%, and
60% were chosen. Measurements of the binaural modula-
tion depth were carried out for the interaural differences
in modulation (Dm = ml  mr) of 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%,
80%, 90% and 100% (ml and mr – modulation depths pre-
sented to the left and right ear, respectively). The modula-
tion depth values presented to the left ear (ml) for different
combination of mr and Dm are given in Table 1.
2.3. Subjects
Five paid subjects (two women and three men, students
from outside of our institute), aged 20–23, with normal-
hearing but without psychophysical experience were tested
individually in a soundproof chamber. The pure-tone
audiograms for the left and right ear of each subject did
not exceed 5–8 dB HL over the 6 octaves from 250 to
8000 Hz. None of them was an author of this paper. The
subject’s task was to indicate the stimulus with a larger
modulation depth perceived as fluctuating loudness. In this
way the point of subjective equalization between the sensa-
tions of the modulation depth of the target and that of the
matching stimuli was achieved.
Differences in modulation depth were accompanied by
certain lateralization effects, mainly in the form of the
movement of perceived location (from side to side between
ears) of a sound image having a spatially broad form. The
subjects were informed about these effects and were asked
to pay attention to the differences between the modulation
depth of the target and the matching stimuli. Initially, sub-
jects experienced some difficulty comparing the modulation
depth of the target to that of the matching stimulus due to
the presence of lateralization effects. Similar difficulty in
measuring the perceived modulation depth in monaural
scenario was encountered by Moore et al. (1996) who
investigated the effect of loudness recruitment on the per-
ception of amplitude modulation. After 4 h of practice
their three subjects were able to produce consistent results.
In our experiment, prior to data collection, the subjects
received a minimum of 5 h of practice to learn to focus
their attention on the difference in the modulation depths.
After such practice, in which all stimuli were used, the sub-
jects declared no difficulty in indicating the stimulus in a
pair with the larger modulation depth and their perfor-
mance had stabilized.
2.4. Results
2.4.1. Diotic listening conditions
At the first stage of the experiment, binaurally perceived
modulation depth were determined for diotic listening con-
ditions i.e., when the modulation depths of the target at the
left and right ear were the same (Dm = 0). The modulation-
matching test aimed at defining the subject’s ability and
depth within the range of parameters measured. Fig. 1
shows the modulation depth value of the matching
128 E. Ozimek et al. / Hearing Research 235 (2008) 125–133

100 fc = 250 Hz fc = 1000 Hz fc = 4000 Hz

Matched modulation depth [%]

80

60

40

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Modulation depth of target ml = mr [%]

Fig. 1. Dependence of the binaurally matched modulation depth (m) on the modulation presented to the left (ml) and right (mr) ear, under diotic
conditions of perception (ml = mr), for three carrier frequencies fc equal 250, 1000 and 4000 Hz. Data averaged across five subjects. Dotted lines (diagonals
of the panels) show theoretical dependencies according to formula (13) (see p. 3). The error bars indicate inter-subject standard deviation.

stimulus adjusted to that of the target, expressed in per- accuracy despite some lateralization artefacts caused by
centage, as a function of the modulation depth of the tar- modulation. This statement is important for reliable mea-
get, averaged across subjects, for the carrier frequencies surements of the binaurally perceived modulation depth
of 250, 1000 and 4000 Hz. The error bars indicate ±1 stan- in the dichotic listening conditions.
dard deviation across subjects. The bars are not shown
when smaller than the symbol used to represent the point, 2.4.2. Dichotic listening conditions
as was the case for a low modulation depth of the target. In dichotic listening conditions the modulation depths
According to Fig. 1, the experimental results obtained for the target were different at both ears, whereas the mod-
for the diotic condition lay on the straight line (diagonal ulation depths for the matching stimulus were the same.
of the plot) and are characterized by small values of SD. The data for these conditions (ml 6¼ mr) are presented in
This indicates a good agreement between the modulation Fig. 2. The plots (solid lines) show the measured modula-
depths of the matching and test stimuli for all subjects tion depth of the matched stimulus as a function of the
tested, regardless of the modulation value. The relation- interaural difference in modulation depth Dm = ml  mr,
ships obtained are independent of the carrier frequency. for fc = 250, 1000 and 4000 Hz. The dotted lines indicate
A regression analysis of the data revealed that relationships the relation m = f(Dm) calculated according to formula
are highly linear (r = 0.99). The data resulting from this (12) (see p. 3). The parameter of the curves is mr (modula-
experiment have confirmed the subjects ability to perform tion depth presented to the right ear) equals to 0%, 10%,
matching of modulation depths of stimuli used to a high 20%, and 60%. The error bars indicate standard deviation

100 fc = 250 Hz mr = 0 % fc = 1000 Hz fc = 4000 Hz

Matched modulation depth [%]

mr = 10 %
mr = 20 %
80 mr = 60 %

60

40

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Interaural difference in modulation depth Δ m [%]

Fig. 2. Dependence of the binaurally matched modulation depth (m) on the interaural difference in modulation depth (Dm = ml  mr), under dichotic
conditions of perception (ml 6¼ mr), for three carrier frequencies (250, 1000 and 4000 Hz). Results for four different mr values are indicated by the four
plotting symbols. Data averaged across five subjects. Solid lines show experimental data, dotted lines theoretical dependencies according to formula (12)
(see p. 3). The error bars indicate inter-subject standard deviation.
 E. Ozimek et al. / Hearing Research 235 (2008) 125–133
across the subjects. The bars are not seen when they are
smaller than the symbol used to represent a given point.
Similar dependencies (not displayed here) were obtained
for the series of additional measurements in which the same
four values of modulation depth (0%, 10%, 20%, and 60%.)
were presented to the left not the right ear. In these addi-
tional measurements, the matched modulation depth val-
ues were similar to those obtained in the basic
experiment within the limit of error (across the subjects)
less than 6% for 0%, 10% and 20% of the modulation
and 11% for 60% of the modulation. These data indicated
reasonably good symmetry of binaural perception of the
subjects tested.
As shown in Fig. 2, the matched modulation depth m,
presented on the ordinate axis, increases with increasing
interaural difference in modulation depth Dm, and the rate
of the increase is Dm dependent. To quantify the rate of the
increase in the perceived modulation depth versus Dm, the
approximate slopes S = mms/Dm of the modulation-match-
ing functions were calculated in two ranges of Dm, between
0–40% and above 40%. It was found that for the range of
0–40%, the mms value, for all carrier frequencies tested,
exhibited approximately an increase of about 14%, which
corresponded to the slope S0–40 of about 0.35. For the sec-
ond range of Dm (above 40%), and for consecutive mr, the
slopes S>40 amounted to 0.29; 0.27; and 0.25 (an average
0.27) for fc = 250 Hz; 0.25; 0.28; 0.23 (an average 0.25)
for fc = 1000 Hz, and 0.22; 0.24; 0.22 (an average 0.23)
for fc = 4000 Hz, respectively. The obtained data suggest
that for the dichotic listening condition, the slope of the
perceived modulation depth versus Dm is steeper for the
small interaural modulation depth than for large Dm. It
is worth noticing that the corresponding slope of the mod-
ulation-matching functions, for the diotic condition (see
Fig. 1), was equal to 1. Generally, one can say that the
matched m is almost linearly related to Dm for small Dm
(less than 40%), however, for large Dm, the relation
becomes more complex and the perceived modulation devi-
ates from linearity with increasing Dm. Besides, with
increasing interaural differences Dm, the variability in the
matched m also increases. For small Dm, the SD calculated
across the subjects does not exceed 5%, but for large Dm,
the SD increases to about 10–15%.
The data presented in Fig. 2 do not indicate any partic-
ular effect of the carrier frequencies tested on the perceived
modulation depth. As Fig. 2 shows, none of the specific
changes in the m(Dm) relations are found at 250; 1000
and 4000 Hz frequencies. Similar subject’s performance
across the three carrier frequencies imply a central process-
ing of the binaural modulation perception.
The experimental data were subjected to a within-sub-
jects analysis of variance (ANOVA) with factors: interaural
difference in modulation (Dm), modulation depth (mr) and
carrier frequency (fc). This analysis indicated that the effect
of the interaural differences in modulation on the binau-
rally perceived modulation depth was statistically signifi-
cant [F(3, 216) = 550.72, p < 0.05]. It also showed that
129
the modulation depth mr was significant [F(1,
216) = 881.08, p < 0.05]. No statistically significant effect
of fc and subjects on the perceived modulation depth was
evident, nor was there any signifi cant interaction of sub-
jects with fc.
3. Estimation of binaurally perceived modulation depth
In our estimation it was assumed that the peak loudness
(not overall one), proportional to the AM peak amplitudes,
is a basic cue for evaluation of the binaurally perceived
modulation depth, at least for low rate of modulation rate.
Such an assumption is supported by Bauch (1956) data
who reported that for a low modulation rate, loudness
was determined by the peak level. Zwicker and Fastl
(1999) showed that for a narrow frequency separation of
two-tone complexes (up to about 10 Hz) the loudness level
was determined by the peak value of the sound pressure
reached within the beating period.
It is worth mentioning that the hitherto literature on the
loudness of modulated sounds reported different findings
on the effect of modulation on the perceived loudness.
For example, Moore et al. (1999) data indicated that equal
rms levels led to approximately equal loudness of steady
and modulated sounds. Grimm et al. (2002), investigating
the perception of loudness of fluctuating sounds have
reported that the loudness was influenced by temporal
envelope i.e. a high crest factor led to increased loudness.
For the loudness of the modulated sounds they have found
small level differences (of the order of 1 dB) between
equally loud modulated and unmodulated signals. Zhang
and Zeng (1997) have suggested that loudness was deter-
mined more by the peak level at low sensation levels and
more by the rms level at high sensation levels. Other papers
suggested that the loudness of AM sounds may be also
related to the compressive property of the basilar mem-
brane (Florentine et al., 1996; Buus et al., 1997). AM sig-
nals with the same rms level (i.e., the same overall
loudness) but with different peak factors caused by different
modulation indices may have different loudness, since their
excitation of the basilar membrane differs when the com-
pression mechanism is included (Carlyon and Datta,
1997). One may assume that the effect of the compression
changes with increasing modulation index since such an
increase results in greater amplitude changes.
From the physiological point of view, at some stage of
binaural perception, changes in the modulation depth of
AM signals, are reproduced by interactions between the
neural firing patterns of the two ears. The superior olivary
complex (SOC) is the site at which the neural firings from
the two cochlear nuclei first interact. This interaction
occurs in two nuclei of the SOC i.e. in the medial superior
olive (MSO) and lateral superior olive (LSO) (Irvin, 1992;
Schwartz, 1992; Kuwada et al., 1997). However, the type
of neural firing interaction in SOC is still uncertain. The
physiological data imply that the MSO receives excitatory
inputs and the LSO inhibitory inputs primarily from the
130 E. Ozimek et al. / Hearing Research 235 (2008) 125–133
ipsilateral ear (Kuwada et al., 1997). Further and more
complex neural interactions occur at higher levels of the
hearing pathway mainly in the auditory brainstem struc-
tures and in the auditory area of cerebral cortex (Phillips
et al., 1991; Altschuler et al., 1991; Wang and Sachs,
1992; Kuwada et al., 1997).
Let us estimate the modulation depth of the binaurally
perceived signals, on the basis of the interaction of their
loudness. It is generally known that the loudness, L, is a
power function of the signal intensity, I (for sensation level
above 30 dB SL). Thus, one can write
L ¼ kI p
where the exponent, p, is 0.3 (Hellman and Hellman, 1990;
Green, 1993; Plack and Carlyon, 1995) and the constant k
is 1/15.849 (for a sone scale (Hartmann, 1997)). For sensa-
tion levels lower than 30 dB SL, no consensus exists on the
form of the loudness function, but generally it is steeper
than at moderate level (Buus et al., 1998). We assume that
the modulators are in phase in both ears (as was done in
the experiment).
The increment of loudness, dL, depending on the incre-
ment of intensity changes, dI, can be obtained by differen-
tiating expression (1). In this way one can get
ðp1Þ
dL ¼ pkI dI
For limited increments of intensity, the formula (2) can be
approximated by (2a)
DL ¼ pkI ðp1Þ DI ¼ pkI p DI=I ¼ pLDI=I
Intensity increment DI depends on the difference between
its maximal and minimal value, i.e.,
DI ¼ I max  I min
where
I max  A2max and I min  A2min
Amax and Amin – maximal and minimal value of signal
amplitude. Since for SAM signals
Amax ¼ A0 ð1 þ mÞ and Amin ¼ A0 ð1  mÞ
where A0 is the amplitude of a non-modulated signal, hence
2 2
I max  A20 ð1 þ mÞ and I min  A20 ð1  mÞ
and
DI  A20 ð1 þ 2m þ m2 Þ  A20 ð1  2m þ m2 Þ  4A20 m
Assuming for changing intensity (DI) and for the average
intensity ðI  A20 Þ the same proportional constants, one
can transform expression (3) to the form:
DI=I ¼ 4m
Substituting (4) to (2a) we get (5).
DL ¼ 4pLm
where L is the loudness according to (1). Eq. (5) gives the
description of the loudness increase DL related to the mod-
ulation depth m.
It was assumed that in case of binaural presentation, the
resultant loudness perceived by the subject, can be
expressed as
Lw ¼ cðLl þ Lr Þ ð6Þ
where Ll and Lr – peak loudness in the left and right ear, c –
a coefficient with a value changing within a certain range. If
we assume a linear summation of loudness during binaural
perception of signals (Hellman and Zwislocki, 1963;
Marks, 1978), the value of the coefficient c = 1. If it is as-
sumed that the summation is not fully linear (Scharf and
Fishken, 1970), the value of coefficient c should be taken
ð1Þ
as smaller than 1.
The change in loudness DLw for AM signal can be gen-
erally written as the difference between maximal and mini-
mal loudness, i.e.,
DLw ¼ Lw max  Lw min ð7Þ
Changes in the left and right ear can be expressed in a sim-
ilar way:
DLl ¼ Ll max  Ll min
DLr ¼ Lr max  Lr min
Using (6), the maximal and minimal loudness can be ex-
pressed as
ð2Þ
Lw max ¼ cðLl max þ Lr max Þ ð8Þ
Lw min ¼ cðLl min þ Lr min Þ ð9Þ
ð2aÞ Subtracting (9) from (8) we get
DLw ¼ cðDLl þ DLr Þ ð10Þ
Putting (5) (which applies to the dichotic and monaural
case) into (6) and then into (10) we get
4p½cðLl þ Lr Þmw ¼ 4pcLl ml þ 4pcLr mr ð11Þ
where mw means the resultant modulation depth produced
during the binaural perception of AM signals. After simpli-
fication of (11) one can get the final equation for mw, for
the case of binaural perception of amplitude modulated
signals with modulation indexes at the left and right ears
ml and mr and modulators in phase in both ears.
mw ¼ ðLl ml þ Lr mr Þ=ðLl þ Lr Þ ð12Þ
Eq. (12) indicates that the resultant modulation depth, mw
formed during binaural perception of AM signals, depends
ð3Þ both on their modulation indexes ml and mr, and peak
loudness Ll and Lr.
In our calculation it was assumed that Ll and Lr were
proportional to AM peak amplitudes raised to 0.6 power.
The numerical estimates of the Ll and Lr, were determined
0:6
ð4Þ 1
according to the formula: Ll ¼ 15:85 A0:6 1
max l ¼ 15:85 ½A0l ð1 þ ml Þ
0:6
1
and Lr ¼ 15:85 A0:6 1
max r ¼ 15:85 ½A0r ð1 þ mr Þ , A0 is the ampli-
tude of a non-modulated signal. The peak amplitude of
ð5Þ AM signal was equal Amax = A0(1 + m). For m = 0,
Amax = A0 where A0 amplitude of the non-modulated sig-
nal. In dichotic presentation that is when ml 6¼ mr, and
Ll 6¼ Lr, the peak amplitudes were different (since modula-
 E. Ozimek et al. / Hearing Research 235 (2008) 125–133
tion indexes ml and mr were different), and the binaural
modulation depth was calculated on the basis of Eq. (12).
For the diotic presentation of AM signals, Ll = Lr since
ml = mr. Thus, Eq. (12) can be simplified to the form
mw ¼ ðml þ mr Þ=2 ð13Þ
Fig. 2 shows the curves of the binaurally perceived modu-
lation depth, determined in accordance with Eq. (12) (thin
dotted lines) as a function of the interaural depth differ-
ence, for three carrier frequencies. As can be seen, a good
agreement between the predictions and the experimental re-
sults is obtained for small and medium interaural differ-
ences in modulation depth, Dm. However, for large Dm,
the matched m starts to depart systematically from the data
predicted by Eq. (12).
4. Discussion
The experimental data resulting from the diotic presen-
tation of AM signals, i.e., when mr = ml, have shown the
subjects’ high accuracy in adjusting the modulation depth
of the matching stimulus to that of the test stimulus. This
holds true for all carrier frequencies tested.
In dichotic presentation of AM signals (ml 6¼ mr), the
binaurally perceived modulation depth was approximately
the mean of ml and mr, for interaural difference, Dm less
than 40%. However, for a larger Dm the perceived modula-
tion was generally less that the mean of ml and mr. In this
case significantly different values of the modulation depths
at the two ears produce more spatially broadened
(smeared) image than it takes place for a smaller Dm. Par-
ticular situation is observed for the largest interaural differ-
ences Dm = ml  mr, close to 100%. In such condition, an
unmodulated signal (pure tone) was presented to one
(right) ear (mr = 0%), and an amplitude modulated signal
to the other (left) ear (ml = 100%). When the AM signal
reached its minimal amplitude, the non-modulated (pure)
tone masked the AM signal, reducing its modulation
depth. The result of this effect is seen in Fig. 2 in which
the perceived modulation depth, at ml = 100% and
mr = 0 is within the range 30–35%. The more complex
trend of m = f(Dm) functions for large Dm may be caused
by the fact that temporal changes in amplitude of the
SAM signal are not linearly projected into the fibre dis-
charge rate. Physiological findings indicate that the fibres
show an increasing discharge rate only in a limited dynamic
range (Joris and Yin, 1992). The pattern of amplitude
changes in the fibres is also related to the level of their
spontaneous activity. The fibres with high levels of this
activity reproduce amplitude modulation much worse than
those with low levels of spontaneous activity (Joris and
Yin, 1992).
One has to bear in mind that the binaural signal process-
ing is not only peripheral but mainly of the central origin,
based on the activity of the central auditory nervous system
(CANS). Since CANS is less accessible to a direct study, so
far less is known on the coding and binaural processing of
131
AM signals by CANS than on that at the peripheral level.
CANS comprises the cochlear nucleus complexes, a few
structures of the brainstem and the auditory cortical fields.
An initial convergence of the information from the two
cochlear nuclei takes place in the superior olivary complex
(Atkin et al., 1984; Yin and Kuwada, 1984; Phillips et al.,
1991). Responses of brainstem to the interaural changes
in intensity show that the cortex processes many of the bin-
aural interactions [Kuwada and Yin, 1983]. Band-pass
characteristics of central auditory neurons responding to
AM signals exhibit considerable selectivity and multiple
levels of transformation arising from neural mechanisms
in the central auditory system. Specific cortical neurons
can sum spike discharges received from the two inputs
(Kitzes et al., 1980). This supports the assumption related
to the binaural loudness summation taken in p. 3. The neu-
rons from central parts of the auditory system may exhibit
a decrease in the discharge rate with increasing stimulation
(Suga, 1992), limiting the accurate processing of the large
interaural differences in modulation depth. This to some
extent accounts for the flattening of m = f(Dm) function
seen for large Dm.
Our data do not show statistically significant changes in
the perceived modulation depth versus the carrier frequen-
cies tested. Since the sensation of the modulation depth for
low fm is based on the perception of the peak loudness (as it
was assumed) one can expect that binaural loudness sum-
mation is independent of frequency. This agrees with the
experimental finding showing that binaural loudness is
independent of frequency (Zwicker and Zwicker, 1991). It
is also consistent with Bauch data (1956) who found, study-
ing the loudness of amplitude modulated signals, that the
loudness of those signals is independent of carrier
frequencies.
Besides the experiments which allowed measurements of
the binaurally perceived modulation depth, the theoretical
approach to estimate its value and to indicate a role of bin-
aural loudness interaction was also made and results have
been compared. It was found that the experimental and cal-
culated data are in a good agreement within the range of
Dm up to 40% and in the majority of cases up to about
70%. However, some differences between these results
appear for Dm above 70%. This implies that for larger
Dm values the perceived modulation may be influenced
additionally by some other phenomena. One of them is
the peripheral nonlinearity caused by the compressive
property of the basilar membrane (Florentine et al., 1996;
Buus et al., 1997; Zhang and Zeng, 1997; Carlyon and Dat-
ta, 1997; Moore et al., 1999). For AM signals, with the
same average level but with large interaural difference in
modulation depths (large Dm) the compressive (nonlinear)
property, affects much more the peak amplitude of the
stronger modulated signal than the weaker one since the
larger the peak amplitude the larger the compression. In
this way, the interaural difference in intensity diminishes
leading to a discrepancy between binaurally perceived
modulation depth and calculated one for which the
132 E. Ozimek et al. / Hearing Research 235 (2008) 125–133
compression effect was not considered. It is also possible
that for large Dm the processing that takes place is more
complex than the simply loudness summation of AM sig-
nals assumed in the calculations. Such a complex process-
ing has been implied by Wojtczak and Viemeister (1999).
They investigated the thresholds for detection of low-rate
sinusoidal amplitude modulation and for detection of
intensity increments over a wide range of levels and found
a complex relationship between the psychometric functions
for modulation and increment detection. Perhaps a similar
relationship is also involved in our suprathreshold depen-
dence between the modulation and loudness. Some effect
on the difference between the resultant modulation depth
calculated on the basis of Eq. (12) and that perceived in
the experiment for large Dm probably results from the fact
that Eq. (12) has been derived assuming the limited incre-
ment of intensity (cf. 2a). However, for high Dm values,
corresponding to considerable increments of intensity, this
assumption is not fully satisfied so the data obtained from
Eq. (12) can be charged with some error. It would be inter-
esting to take into account the quantity describing the neu-
ral count rate proposed by McGill and Goldberg (1968)
instead of a limited increment of intensity. They assumed
that the discrimination of a change in intensity was deter-
mined by a statistically reliable change in the neural count
rate. In this way the number of neural counts generated by
the intensity increment could be directly related to the
loudness increment. Hellman and Hellman (1990) using
such an approach found a good agreement between the
measured and calculated loudness for different increments
of intensity and for a wide range of sound levels.
One should stress that the above mentioned calculations
were not aimed at modelling of the AM binaural percep-
tion but an analysis of the role of the loudness summation
in this perception. The calculations applied do not include
the functions usually used in modelling of the binaural sys-
tem, such as: filtering in the auditory periphery, neural cod-
ing of the stimuli, comparison of interaural temporal
information based on a correlation or coincidence mecha-
nism, and a decision making mechanism (Colburn, 1995;
Stern and Trahiotis, 1995). Surprisingly, under such a sim-
plification of the processing applied, the perceived binaural
modulation depth seems to be in a reasonable agreement
for measurements and calculations for low fm (except for
large Dm). This finding suggests that in the case of the slow
amplitude modulation, the binaural interaction in terms of
loudness summation of the input AM signals is one of
important mechanisms in the perception of the modulation
depth.
It is worth stressing the practical aspect of the data
resulting from the present study on the binaural perception
of AM signals. This aspect is related to the speech intelligi-
bility in a room. Some authors showed that the binaural
effects strongly depended on the positions of the speech
and the noise source in a room (Moncur and Dirk, 1967;
Nabelek and Robinson, 1982). These effects were caused
mainly by the superposition of reflections of different
orders reaching the observation point with different time
delays and the room‘s frequency response Taking into
account dichotic listening conditions it was also reported
that the speech intelligibility scores in a room were related
to the so-called modulation transfer function (Miyata
et al., 1991). Our studies (Ozimek and Se˛k, 1996; Ozimek
and Rutkowski, 2001) showed that the AM index (m), mea-
sured by use of a dummy head, differed in the left and right
ear i.e., changed over the interaural distance. The m
change, for low fm, reached sometimes even 30% and
depended on the modulation frequency and room reverber-
ation time. Such changes were greater than the perception
thresholds of the interaural differences in the modulation
depth (Ozimek and Se˛k, 1996). They should be perceived
by the subjects and consequently may effect the speech
intelligibility or the quality of music in a room. However,
further study of a much wider range of stimuli and their
physical parameters, in different acoustic enclosures, is
needed to get practical application of the effects related
to binaural perception of modulation depth in room
acoustics.
5. Conclusions
– In dichotic presentation of AM stimuli, the perceived
modulation depth, for small interaural difference
Dm < 40%, approximates the arithmetic mean of the
modulation presented to the left and right ear. For
higher values of Dm, the perceived modulation tends
to be lower than the mean of ml and mr.
– As regards the calculation of the modulation depth
based on the assumption of loudness summation, the
experimental and calculated value have been found in
a good agreement for the interaural differences in mod-
ulation depth Dm less than about 70%. However, for lar-
ger Dm, some discrepancies between these values,
roughly within the range of SD, appeared.
– In the case of slow amplitude modulation, the binaural
loudness summation of the input AM signals plays the
basic role in the binaural perception of the modulation
depth.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the State Committee for
Scientific Research (KBN), Grant No. 2 P05D 122 26
and by Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Cul-
ture which financed the sabbatical year of the first author
at the Research Institute of Electrical Communication, To-
hoku University, Sendai. We thank the anonymous review-
ers for helpful remarks on the earlier version of this paper.
References
Algom, D., Ben-Aharon, B., Cohen-Raz, L., 1989. Dichotic, diotic and
monaural summation of loudness. A comprehensive analysis and
psychophysical functions. Percept. Psychophys. 46, 567–578.
 E. Ozimek et al. / Hearing Research 235 (2008) 125–133
Altschuler, R.A., Bobbin, R.P., Clopton, B.C., Hoffman, D.W.
(Eds.), 1991. Neurobiology of Hearing: The Central Auditory
System. Raven Press, Ltd., New York.
Atkin, L.M., Irvine, D.R., Webster, W.R., 1984. Central neural mecha-
nism of hearing. In: Darian-Smith, I. (Ed.), Handbook of Physiology –
The Nervous System III. Am. Physiol. Soc., Washington, DC, pp.
675–737.
Bauch, H., 1956. Die Bedeutung der Frequenzgruppe für die Lautheit von
Klängen. Acustica 6, 40–45.
Blauert, J., 1983. Spatial Hearing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bregman, A.S., 1990. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organi-
zation of Sound. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Buus, S., Florentine, M., Poulsen, T., 1997. Temporal integration of
loudness, loudness discrimination, and the form of the loudness
function. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 669–680.
Buus, S., Müsch, H., Florentine, M., 1998. On loudness at threshold. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 104, 399–410.
Carlyon, R.P., Datta, A.J., 1997. Excitation produced by Schroeder phase
complexes: evidence for fast-acting compression in the auditory
system. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 3636–3647.
Colburn, H.S., 1995. Computational Models of Binaural Processing. In:
Hawkins, H.L., McMullen, T.A., Popper, A.N., Fay, R. (Eds.),
Auditory Computation. Springer Verlag, pp. 332–400.
Florentine, M., Buus, S., Poulsen, T., 1996. Temporal integration of
loudness as a function of level. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99, 1633–1644.
Green, D., 1993. Auditory intensity discrimination. In: Yost, W., Popper,
A., Fay, R. (Eds.), Human Psychophysics. Springer Verlag, pp. 13–55.
Grimm, G., Hohmann, V., Verhey, J., 2002. Loudness of fluctuating
sounds. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 88, 359–368.
Hartmann, W.M., 1997. Signals, Sound, and Sensation. American
Institute of Physics, Woodbury, New York.
Hellman, W.S., Hellman, R.P., 1990. Intensity discrimination as the
driving force for loudness. Application to pure tones in quiet. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 87, 1255–1265.
Hellman, R.P., Zwislocki, J.J., 1963. Monaural loudness function at
1000 cps, and interaural summation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 35, 856–865.
Houtgast, T., Steeneken, H.J., Plomp, R., 1980. Predicting speech
intelligibility in rooms from the modulation transfer function. I.
General room acoustics. Acustica 46, 60–72.
Houtgast, T., Steeneken, H.J., 1985. Review of the MTF concept in room
acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 77, 1061–1077.
Irvin, D.R.F., 1992. Physiology of the auditory brainstem. In: Popper,
A.N., Fay, R.R. (Eds.), The Mammalian Auditory Pathway: Neuro-
physiology. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 153–231.
Joris, P.X., Yin, C.T., 1992. Responses to amplitude modulated tones in
the auditory nerve of the cat. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91, 215–232.
Kitzes, L.M., Wrege, K.S., Cassady, J.M., 1980. Patterns of responses of
cortical cells to binaural stimulation. J. Comp. Neurol. 192, 455–472.
Kuwada, S., Yin, T.C., 1983. Binaural interaction in low frequency
neurons in inferior colliculus of the cat. I. Effects of long interaural
delays, intensity and repetition rate on interaural delay function. J.
Neurophysiol. 50, 981–999.
Kuwada, S., Batra, R., Fitzpatrick, D.C., 1997. Neural processing of
binaural temporal cues. In: Gilkey, R.H., Anderson, T.R. (Eds.),
Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual Environments. LAE
Publ., Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 399–426.
Marks, L.E., 1978. Binaural summation of the loudness of pure tones. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 64, 107–113.
McGill, W.J., Goldberg, J.P., 1968. A study of the near-miss involving
Weber’s Law and pure-tone intensity discrimination. Percept. Psycho-
phys. 4, 105–109.
Miyata, H., Nomura, H., Houtgast, T., 1991. Speech intelligibility and
subjective MTF under diotic and dichotic listening conditions in
reverberant sound fields. Acustica 73, 200–207.
133
Moncur, J.P., Dirk, D., 1967. Binaural and monaural speech intelligibility
of connected discourse in reverberation as a function of azimuth of a
single competing sound source (speech or noise). Acustica 34, 200–208.
Moore, B.C.J., Wojtczak, M., Vickers, D.A., 1996. Effect of loudness
recruitment on the perception of amplitude modulation. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 100, 481–489.
Moore, B.C.J., Vickers, A., Baer, T., Launer, S., 1999. Factors affecting
the loudness of modulated sounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 2757–
2772.
Moore, B.C.J., Glasberg, B.R., 2007. Modeling binaural loudness. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 121, 1604–1612.
Nabelek, A.K., Robinson, P.K., 1982. Monaural and binaural speech
perception in reverberation for listeners of various ages. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 71, 1242–1248.
Ozimek, E., Rutkowski, L., 2001. Changes in frequency of FM signals
propagating in a room. In: 17th International Congress on Acoustics,
Rome, September 2–7, 3P.49, p. 53.
Ozimek, E., Se˛k, A., 1996. AM and FM difference limens and their
reference to amplitude-frequency changes of a sound in a room. Acta
Acust. 82, 114–122.
Ozimek, E., Sone, T., 1997. Binaural perception of the modulation depth
of AM signals. In: Preis, A., Hornowski, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
XIII Annual Meeting of the Inter. Soc. for Psychop. Poznań, Poland,
pp. 73–78.
Phillips, D.P., Reale, R.A., Brugge, J.F., 1991. Stimulus processing in the
auditory cortex. In: Altschuler, R.A. et al. (Eds.), Neurobiology of
Hearing: The Central Auditory System. Raven Press, Ltd., New York,
pp. 335–365.
Plack, C.J., Carlyon, R.P., 1995. Loudness perception and intensity
coding. In: Moore, B.C. (Ed.), Hearing. Academic Press, pp. 123–160.
Reynolds, G.S., Stevens, S.S., 1960. Binaural summation of loudness. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 32, 1337–1344.
Scharf, B., Fishken, D., 1970. Binaural summation of loudness: Recon-
sidered. J. Exp. Psychol. 86, 374–379.
Schlauch, R.S., 1994. Intensity resolution and loudness in high-pass noise.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 2171–2179.
Schwartz, I.R., 1992. The superior olivary complex and lateral lemniscal
nuclei. In: Webster, D.B., Popper, A.N., Fay, R.R. (Eds.), The
Mammalian Auditory Pathway: Neuroanatomy. Springer-Verlag,
New York, pp. 117–167.
Stern, R.M., Trahiotis, C., 1995. Models of binaural interaction. In:
Moore, B.C. (Ed.), Hearing. Academic Press, pp. 347–386.
Suga, N., 1992. Philosophy and stimulus design for neuroethology of
complex-sound processing. In: Viemeister N.F. (Ed.), 1979. Temporal
Modulation Transfer Functions Based Upon Modulation Thresholds.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 66, pp. 1364–1380.
Viemeister, N.F., 1979. Temporal modulation transfer functions based
upon modulation thresholds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 66, 1364–1380.
Wang, X., Sachs, M.B., 1992. Coding of envelope modulation in the
auditory nerve and anteroventral cochlear nucleus. In: Carlyon, R.P.,
Darwin, C.J., Russell, I.J. (Eds.), Processing of Complex Sounds by
the Auditory System. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 105–108.
Wojtczak, M., Viemeister, N.F., 1999. Intensity discrimination and
detection of amplitude modulation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 1917–
1924.
Yin, T.C., Kuwada, S., 1984. Neuronal mechanisms of binaural interac-
tional. In: Edelman, G.M., Gal, W.E., Cowan, W.M. (Eds.), Dynamic
Aspects of Neocortical Function. Wiley, New York, pp. 263–313.
Zhang, C., Zeng, F., 1997. Loudness of dynamic stimulus in acoustic and
electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102, 2925–2934.
Zwicker, E., Fastl, H., 1999. Psychoacoustics Facts and Models. Springer.
Zwicker, E., Zwicker, U.T., 1991. Dependence of binaural loudness
summation on interaural level differences, spectral distribution, and
temporal distribution. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 89, 756–764.