Impedance at the Eardrum, Middle-Ear Transmission, and Equal Loudness

Ross, Strange

doi:10.1121/1.1910857

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, it is hypothesized that the loudness of a stimulus results from the temporal summation of acoustic energy, as reflected by the number of neural impulses that are recruited (Troland, 1929;Wever, 1949;Zwislocki, 1960Zwislocki, , 1969. In the present context, two sinusoidal stimuli were judged to be equally loud when the total number of integrated impulses was approximately the same for both auditory sensations over a sufficient period of time (see, also, Ross, 1968). However, the number of nerve fibers along the basilar membrane varies as a function of the stimulus frequency to be received.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Loudness and reaction time: I

Kohfeld

Santee

Wallace

1981

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely assumed, based on Chocholle's (1940) research, that stimuli that appear equal in loudness will generate the same reaction times. In Experiment 1, we first obtained equal-loudness functions for five stimulus frequencies at four different intensity levels. It was found that equal loudness produced equal RT a~80 phons and 60 phons, but not at 40 phons and 20 phons. It is likely that Chocholle obtained equivalence between loudness and RT at all intensity levels because of relay-click transients in his RT signals. One main conclusion drawn from Experiment 1 is that signal detection (in reaction time) and stimulus discrimination (in loudness estimation) require different perceptual processes. In the second phase of this investigation, the RT-intensity functions from six different experiments were used to generate scales of auditory intensity. Our analyses indicate that when the nonsensory or "residual" component is removed from auditory RT measures, the remaining sensory-detection component is inversely related to sound pressure according to a power function whose exponent is about -.3. The absolute value of this exponent is the same as the .3 exponent for loudness when interval-scaling procedures are used, and is one-half the size of the .6 exponent which is commonly assumed for loudness scaling.The historic traditions that underlie the present research are formidable. Psychophysicists have consistently found a direct relation between auditory stimulus intensity and loudness. Specifically, Stevens and his colleagues have established that perceived loudness grows as a power function of stimulus intensity (Marks, 1974(Marks, , 1979. Equally impressive is the evidence in support of an inverse relation between stimulus intensity and simple auditory reaction time (RT). Classic experiments by Cattell (1886), Chocholle (1940), Pieron (1920), and Wundt (1874) have convincingly shown that RT decreases monotonically with corresponding increases in auditory stimulus intensity.Based on the fact that stimulus frequency, along with stimulus intensity, are the primary determinants of both loudness and RT, the present paper comprises two major sections in which these two stimulus attributes are evaluated. First, we evaluated the relation between equal loudness (across frequencies) and RT, using Chocholle's (1940) attempted to synthesize the data from several RT experiments in order to construct a uniform scale of sensory intensity that is based on RT measures. PHASE 1: EQUAL LOUDNESS AND REACTION TIMEIt is remarkable how many investigators have cited Chocholle's research, conducted over 40 years ago at the Sorbonne Laboratory, as the definitive study of the relation between auditory RT and signal intensity and frequency. His experiments were extensive but simple in design. Three experienced subjects generated RT-intensity functions over a wide range of intensity levels for frequencies of 20, 50, 250, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, 6,000, and 10,000 Hz. From these initial results, he drew "equal-RT" contours; that is, stimul...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Loudness and reaction time: I

Kohfeld

Santee

Wallace

1981

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most middle-ear networks in the literature (e.g., Ross, 1968;Shaw, 1977;Shaw and Stinson, 1981;Lutman and Martin, 1979;Killion and Clemis, 1981;Goode and Killion, 1987) Table I. The following subsection shows how this general "three-port" representation can be used to obtain the standard "two-port" description of middle-ear mechanics by assuming that the cochlear contents are incompressible.…”

Section: A Equivalent Circuit Of the Middle Earmentioning

confidence: 99%

Middle-ear phenomenology: The view from the three windows

Shera

Zweig

1992

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To provide a common ground for the comparison between theory and experiment, this paper presents a framework for the phenomenological description of middle-ear mechanics. The framework defines those measurements sufficient to characterize the transduction properties of the middle ear and its components. Phenomenological equations are represented in the form of an equivalent electrical circuit that can be used to deduce testable relations among measurable quantities. Two applications are then discussed. First, the classical concept of the middle-ear transformer ratio is generalized to include any effects of eardrum flexion or nonrotational ossicular motion. Middle-ear models predict that the resulting transformer ratios vary considerably with frequency. Second, the conditions under which the topology of existing circuit analogs satisfactorily approximates middle-ear mechanics are given. Most middle-ear models cannot be used to correctly predict the absolute pressures in the cochlea.

show abstract

“…7); the intrasubject means were combined to obtain a "group average" Y• and an intersubject (•(Y•) (Fig. 8) of resistance may be caused by a resonance of the middle-ear cavities (Onchi, 1961;Zwislocki, 1962 Acoustical measurements of V• for much lower frequencies were made by Be'k•sy (1960) and Ross (1968). The combination of these results (Fig.…”

Section: Immittance At the Tympanic Membranementioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of the acoustic input immittance of the human ear

Rabinowitz

1981

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A method is presented for measuring acoustic immittance (admittance or impedance) in the human ear canal and its validity is demonstrated for frequencies from 62 Hz to 4 kHz. Special attention is given to estimating the residual ear-canal space between the eardrum and the tip of the measuring device; estimates were determined, in part, using immittances measured with static pressures applied in the ear canal. Immittance estimates at the eardrum are reported for four normal subjects. Below 500 Hz, the immittance is compliance dominated. Our averaged compliance equivalent to 0.70 cc agrees with that reported by others. From 1 to 4 kHz, the immittance is resistance dominated. Our resistance values exceed those generally reported previously; they are, however, similar to those of Mehrgardt and Mellert [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 61, 1567--1576 (1977)] and to values suggested from analysis of other acoustical measurements on the external ear.

show abstract

Impedance at the Eardrum, Middle-Ear Transmission, and Equal Loudness

Cited by 11 publications

References 8 publications

Loudness and reaction time: I

Loudness and reaction time: I

Middle-ear phenomenology: The view from the three windows

Measurement of the acoustic input immittance of the human ear

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About