Measurement of Loudness, Part I: Methods, Problems, and Pitfalls

Marks, Lawrence Ε.; Florentine, Mary

doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6712-1_2

Cited by 37 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 127 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subjects readily apprehend the use of a scale of this sort with no special instruction; this was particularly useful in the informal settings in which data collection occurred. Rating scales with a very large range give rise to numerical responses very similar to those produced by magnitude estimation (Foley, Cross, Foley, & Reeder, 1983;Guirao, 1991; see also Marks & Florentine, 2011). Noteworthily, judgments do not "jam up" at the high end of broad rating scales as they can with narrower rating scales (e.g., in Galanter & Messick, 1961).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Effects of expectations on loudness and loudness difference

Parker

Moore

Bahraini

et al. 2012

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine how expectations affect loudness and loudness difference, in two experiments we induced some subjects to expect loud sounds (condition L), some to expect soft sounds (condition S), and others to have no particular expectations (control). In Experiment 1, all subjects estimated the loudnesses of the same set of three moderately loud 1-kHz tones. Estimates were greatest for subjects in condition S and smallest for subjects in condition L. Control subjects' estimates were intermediate but closer to those of condition S subjects. In Experiment 2, subjects estimated the difference in loudness for pairs of moderately loud 1-kHz tones. Again, estimates were smallest for condition L subjects; estimates were greatest for control subjects, and condition S subjects' estimates were closer to control estimates than to condition L estimates. This pattern of results is explainable by a combination of (1) Parducci's (1995) range-frequency theory and (2) a gain control mechanism in the auditory system under top-down governance (Schneider, Parker, & Murphy, 2011).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Effects of expectations on loudness and loudness difference

Parker

Moore

Bahraini

et al. 2012

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In humans, simple RTs correlate with direct estimates of loudness (Luce, 1986;Marks and Florentine, 2011), and RT is often used as a proxy measure of loudness (Arieh and Marks, 2003;Wagner et al, 2004). RT has therefore been used in subjects for which loudness assessment with standard methods is very difficult or impossible, such as human infants (Leibold and Werner, 2002) and non-human animals (Dooling et al, 1978;Green, 1975;Kastelein et al, 2011;May et al, 2009;Moody, 1973;Pfingst et al, 1975a;Stebbins, 1966;Ridgway et al, 2001).…”

Section: Relationship Between Rt and Loudnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is more practical to measure simple reaction time (RT; or response latency) to a sound, which correlates with loudness (for reviews, see Luce, 1986;Marks and Florentine, 2011). Simple RT is defined as the time that elapses between the onset of a stimulus and the initiation of a response, when only one type of response is possible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equal latency contours and auditory weighting functions for the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

Wensveen

Huijser²,

Hoek³

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loudness perception by human infants and animals can be studied under the assumption that sounds of equal loudness elicit equal reaction times (RTs). Simple RTs of a harbour porpoise to narrowband frequency-modulated signals were measured using a behavioural method and an RT sensor based on infrared light. Equal latency contours, which connect equal RTs across frequencies, for reference values of 150−200 ms (10 ms intervals) were derived from median RTs to 1 s signals with sound pressure levels (SPLs) of 59-168 dB re. 1 μPa and centre frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 16, 31.5, 63, 80 and 125 kHz. The higher the signal level was above the hearing threshold of the harbour porpoise, the quicker the animal responded to the stimulus (median RT 98−522 ms). Equal latency contours roughly paralleled the hearing threshold at relatively low sensation levels (higher RTs). The difference in shape between the hearing threshold and the equal latency contours was more pronounced at higher levels (lower RTs); a flattening of the contours occurred for frequencies below 63 kHz. Relationships of the equal latency contour levels with the hearing threshold were used to create smoothed functions assumed to be representative of equal loudness contours. Auditory weighting functions were derived from these smoothed functions that may be used to predict perceived levels and correlated noise effects in the harbour porpoise, at least until actual equal loudness contours become available.

show abstract

“…The sensation of loudness depends on many factors, such as sound intensity as well as spectral (e.g., The traditional loudness scaling methods include magnitude estimation procedure, magnitude production procedure and cross-modality matching procedure (e.g., Marks, Florentine, 2011). In magnitude estimation procedure, the subject is asked to rate the loudness on a continuous and unlimited scale; the subject may use any number that is larger than zero.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loudness Functions and Binaural Loudness Summation in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

Kordus

Żera

2017

Archives of Acoustics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loudness functions and binaural loudness summation was investigated in acoustically stimulated bilaterally implanted cochlear implant users. The study was aimed at evaluating growth of loudness functions and binaural loudness summation in cochlear implant subjects as a function of stimulus presentation level at different frequencies. Loudness was assessed using a rating procedure on a scale of 0 to 100. Three experimental conditions were tested: monaural right, monaural left and binaural, each with bands of noise with center frequencies of 0.25, 1, and 4 kHz. Fifteen implanted and five normal-hearing subjects (control group) participated in the experiments. Results demonstrated large variability in the slopes of the loudness functions and the presence of loudness summation in bilateral cochlear implant users, with large individual differences among subjects.

show abstract

Measurement of Loudness, Part I: Methods, Problems, and Pitfalls

Cited by 37 publications

References 127 publications

Effects of expectations on loudness and loudness difference

Effects of expectations on loudness and loudness difference

Equal latency contours and auditory weighting functions for the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

Loudness Functions and Binaural Loudness Summation in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About