Cross-modality matching and the loudness growth function for click stimuli

Abstract

Loudness-intensity functions for click stimuli were obtained from 30 adult listeners having normal (n = 10), flat (n = 10), or sloping (n = 10) high-frequency cochlear hearing loss configurations. The procedure of cross-modality matching (CMM) between loudness and perceived line length [R. P. Hellman and C. H. Meiselman, J. Speech Hear. Res. 31, 605-615 (1988); J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88, 2596-2606 (1990); J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 966-975 (1993)] was used to validate their loudness growth functions. Mean group loudness exponents were similar to those reported in recent investigations that utilized pure tone stimuli, further supporting the validity and reliability of the CMM task as an estimate of the loudness growth function. The results also suggest that the mean loudness function for clicks is similar to the function obtained with tonal stimuli at least for listeners with moderately impaired hearing or better. Moreover, CMM produced less variability than the more conventional psychophysical methods of magnitude estimation and production for the groups with cochlear hearing loss. Toward direct application of the CMM technique, in lieu of absolute exponential slope values, the individually determined loudness growth function over a range of intensities should be compared to the normal mean functions for calculations of deviations.

Estimating loudness growth from tone-burst evoked responses

“…Both methods yielded consistent slope estimates across frequencies, but the CMM method was more reliable in the sense that the standard deviation for the slope estimates ͑last row͒ was an order of magnitude smaller than that of ME ͑0.09 vs. 0.71 for 1 kHz, and 0.08 vs. 0.72 for 4 kHz͒. This observation is consistent with similar studies that use CMM and ME ͑e.g., Serpanos et al, 1998;Collins and Gescheider, 1989͒. The average estimated slope was within the range of those reported in the literature: Epstein and Florentine ͑2005͒ reported a mid-to-high-level slope of about 0.18 ͑using uncorrected CMM͒, Hellman ͑1991͒ reported a slope of 0.3, Serpanos et al ͑1998͒ reported a value of 0.32, Collins and Gescheider ͑1989͒ reported a value of 0.292, McFadden ͑1975͒ observed individual values between 0.14 and 0.24, and Stevens ͑1966͒ reported a value of 0.32.…”

Assessing Growth of Loudness in Children by Cross-Modality Matching

“…The body lengths of the smiling caterpillars were 0.52, 1. 04, 2.08, 5.2, 10 .4, 20 .8, 41 .6, and 65 cm (a ratio of 125:1), in accord with the line lengths used in recent CMM studies with adults (e .g., Hellman and Meiselman, 1988, 1990, 1993Hellman, 1999 ;Serpanos et al, 1998). The width of each line and size of the affixed graphic (the "face" of the caterpillar) was identical for each line length .…”