Individual loudness functions determined from direct comparisons of loudness intervals

We report seven experiments in which subjects were trained to respond with numbers to the loudness of 1000-Hz pure tones according to power functions with exponents of 0.60, 0.30, and 0.90. Subjects were then presented with stimuli from other continua (65-Hzpure tones or 565-nm lights varying in amplitude) and were asked to judge the subjective magnitude of these stimuli on the same numerical scale. Stimuli from the training continuum were presented, with feedback, on every other trial in order to maintain the trained scale. Except for the 0.90 scale, subjects readily learned the predetermined scales and were able to use them to judge the non-training stimuli with group results consistent with those usually reported. Also, in contrast to the usual magnitude estimation results, these results produced extremely low levels of intersubject variability. We argue that such learned scales can be used as "rulers" for measuring perceived magnitudes, according to a common unit.where R is the subjective magnitude of a sensory experience measured by a direct scaling technique (e.g., median or geometric mean magnitude estimation), S is the stimulus magnitude, a is a constant representing the unit of the scale, and m is a constant that varies across sensory con-

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Law)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Constrained scaling: The effect of learned psychophysical scales on idiosyncratic response bias

West

Ward

Khosla

2000

“…When the stimulus array comprises various combinations of equal and unequal sound pressure levels (SPLs), the rank-order relations among the loudness judgments alone suffice to uncover the underlying scale of loudness and the rules of concatenation (see Marks, 1987). Hence, influence on the results of various response biases (e.g., Algom & Marks, 1984;Schneider, 1980) can be avoided altogether. A stimulus set of this type, therefore, makes a sharper delineation of the different integration rules and scales of loudness that have been suggested as governing the various loudness summation phenomena.…”

Section: Mode Of Presentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dichotic, diotic, and monaural summation of loudness: A comprehensive analysis of composition and psychophysical functions

Algom

Ben-Aharon

Cohen-Raz

1989

In a series of six experiments, the method of magnitude estimation, constrained by a multivariate model, was used to assess the rules that govern the summation of the loudness of two-tone complexes. This methodology enabled us to specify the amounts of summation and simultaneously to construct the corresponding loudness scales.\The components had different frequency separations and in the different experiments were presented (1) dichotically, a different frequency to each ear; (2) diotically, to both ears; and (3) monaurally. Results replicated and in some condi· tions extended known features of multiple signal processing by the auditory system. Thus, qualitatively different rules of loudness integration appeared. For monaural and diotic modes of stimulation, overall loudness depended on total sound energy within the critical band, but on the simple sum of component loudnesses beyond the critical band. For dichotic presentations, a fully additive rule of loudness summation appeared, regardless of frequency spacing. For the latter (but not the former), loudness summation was perfect, with the underlying loudness scales closely approximating Stevens's sone scale.In the present set of experiments, we measured the loudness of two tones as a function of (1) their frequency separation (narrow spacing within a critical band vs. wide spacing across a critical band) and (2) their mode of presentation (dichotic, diotic, or monaural). Although the various conditions thus generated have all come under the name of auditory summation, there are substantial differences among them in both the nature of the subjective experience and the objective, measurable outcome. For one, they can be classified as analytic or synthetic, depending on whether or not the components of stimulus mixtures are perceptually separable. More importantly, the rules of integration may differ across conditions. Indeed, the major purpose of this study is to uncover systematically the rules that govern summation under specific conditions of stimulation. Both of the variables tested within the framework of the present investigation are shown to affect the way the auditory system deals with the effects of concurrent multiple stimulation.Preparation of this paper was supported by Nlli Grant NS21326 to Lawrence Marks. His support and suggestions are gratefully acknowledged, as is Robert Melara's useful criticism. We also thank Edward Carterette and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. Barbara Faulkner and Elise Low provided skillful assistance at various stages of the completion of the manuscript. Address correspondence to Daniel Algom, Department of Psychology, Bar nan University, Ramat Gan 52100, Israel.Many of the basic findings on loudness summation have been reported by earlier researchers (e.g., Algom & Marks, 1984;Irwin, 1965;Marks, 1978a Marks, , 1978b Marks, , 1979a Marks, , 1979bMarks, , 1980Porsolt & Irwin, 1967;Reynolds & Stevens, 1960;Scharf, 1969Scharf, , 1970Scharf, , 1978Scharf & Fishken, 19...

“…Engeland and Dawson (1974) found considerable reliability in area and loudness exponents obtained 1 week apart. Using data obtained from comparisons of sensory intervals, Schneider (1980) derived individual power functions for loudness of pure tones which spanned about a threefold range of slopes and showed considerable consistency across replications. Enduring individual differences in loudness scaling were also found by Barbenza, Bryan, and Tempest (1970), Hellman (1981), Logue (1976), J. C. Stevens and Guirao (1964), and Wanschura and Dawson (1974).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The detectability, discriminability, and perceived magnitude of painful electrical shock

Rollman

Harris

1987

109

Thresholds for sensation, pain, and tolerance were obtained from 20 male and 20 female observers who received trains of electrical pulses applied to the volar forearm. Also determined were estimates of sensory magnitude for a series of stimuli that spanned the pain sensitivity range (PSR) between pain threshold and tolerance, as well as Weber fractions for the discrimination of stimuli at the midpoint of the PSR. There were great individual differences in all dependent variables. Females had significantly lower values for all thresholds but did not differ from males in the growth of sensory magnitude or in discriminatory capacity. Power functions, with a median exponent of 1.74 and a mean of 2.39, fit the scaling data well. The results are analyzed for a suggested negative correlation between exponent and stimulus range. The presence of such an effect indicates that electrocutaneous stimulation provides a powerful technique for the analysis of individual differences and the evaluation of psychophysical theories.Electrical stimulation of the skin provides a useful induction method for laboratory studies of pain (Procacci, Della Corte, et al., 1974;Rollman, 1983a; Smith & Andrew, 1970): it is readily graded in intensity, can be turned on and off instantaneously, and produces no lasting physical damage.Past research has typically demonstrated that the subjective magnitudes of the sensations produced by electrical pulses can be related to their current or voltage by a power function with an exponent greater than unity, indicating that the perceived intensity grows at a rate faster than the physical one. The reported value of the exponent of the power function has varied considerably, from near 1.0 to beyond 3.0 (e.g., Algom, Raphaeli, & Cohen- Raz, 1986; Babkoff, 1976 Babkoff, , 1978 Beck & Rosner, 1968;Bevan, 1966;Bromm & Treede, 1980; Bujas, Szabo, Kovacic, & Rohacek, 1975; Ekman, Frankenhaeuser, Levander, & Mellis, 1964Hawkes, 1960; McCallum & Goldberg, 1975;Sachs, Miller, & Grant, 1980;Sternbach & Tursky, 1964;Stevens, Carton, & Shickman, 1958;Tashiro & Higashiyama, 1981). These differences can be ascribed, in part, to the effects of stimulus parameters and correction of the power function for threshold (Rollman, 1974), to the nature and scaling of the physical stimulus (Myers, 1982), to the painfulness of the presentations (Jones, 1980), and to regression and range effects (Cross, Tursky, & Lodge, 1975).Although electrical shocks can be painful, most of the studies cited above determined power functions at levels that were weak enough for the sensation to be described as being tactile rather than nociceptive. Although there This research was supported by Grant AO-392 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to the senior author. Requests for reprints should be sent to Gary B. Rollman, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada.have been attempts to obtain psychophysical functions for intense stimuli in several modalities (e.g