Measurement of Loudness, Part II: Context Effects

Arieh, Yoav; Marks, Lawrence Ε.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6712-1_3

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Marks (1993) showed that the loud stimuli depress the loudness of others with the same frequency but leave sounds of the other frequency unaffected, a finding consistent with the operation of a band-limited gain control mechanism, as in Parker et al (2002). Arieh and Marks (2011) noted some points of dissimilarity between ILR and DCE in intensity tuning-the details of what particular louder intensities have how much impact on what particular lower-intensity stimuli. Nonetheless, Arieh and Marks refer to both processes as "adaptation-like."…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…A phenomenon that bears some similarity to ILR is that of differential context effects (DCE; reviewed in Arieh & Marks, 2011). In a typical experiment, subjects judge the loudness of sounds at two different frequencies with overlapping intensity ranges, sounds at one frequency being soft to moderate and those at the other being moderate to loud.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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 most of them, measuring either the loudness change or the global loudness of rising-and falling-intensity sounds, the two types of sounds were either presented in a random order in one-interval paradigms (Neuhoff, 1998;Susini et al, 2007;Teghtsoonian, Teghtsoonian, & Canévet, 2005) or compared one with another in two-interval paradigms (Neuhoff, 2001;Ponsot et al, 2013). However, it is now recognized that the range, the spacing, and the distribution of a set of stimuli that only vary in intensity influence the loudness evaluation of each stimulus (Arieh & Marks, 2011;Marks, 1993). Thus, the way in which different types of stimuli are presented plausibly also affects their evaluation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, several of such "sequential" effects have been documented for constant-intensity stimuli (for a review, see Arieh & Marks, 2011), and two of them may be worth mentioning. First, with "loudness enhancement," the loudness of a tone is increased when a preceding tone is presented within a short temporal window under certain level conditions (for details, see Oberfeld, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A robust asymmetry in loudness between rising- and falling-intensity tones

Ponsot

Susini

Meunier

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tones rising in intensity over a few seconds are perceived as louder than symmetrical tones falling in intensity. However, the causes for such perceptual asymmetry, as well as its magnitude and dependency on contextual and methodological factors remain unclear. In this paper, two psychophysical experiments were conducted to measure the magnitude of this asymmetry for 2-s, 15-dB intensity-varying tones in different conditions. In the first experiment, participants assessed the global loudness of rising-and falling-intensity sounds with an absolute magnitude estimation procedure (AME); in the second experiment, they compared sounds relatively in an adaptive, two-interval, two-alternative forcedchoice task (2I-2AFC). In both experiments, the region of intensity change, the design of experimental blocks, and the type of comparison stimulus were systematically manipulated to test for contextual and methodological factors. Remarkably, the asymmetry was virtually unaffected by the different contexts of presentation and similar results with 2I-2AFC and AME measurements were obtained. In addition, the size of the effect was comparable over all but the highest intensity regions (80-90 dB SPL), at which it was significantly smaller. All together, these results indicate that the loudness asymmetry is preserved under different measurement methods and contexts, and suggest that the underlying mechanism is strong and robust. In short, falling tones have to be about 4 dB higher in level than symmetrically rising tones in order to be perceived with the same global loudness, a finding that is still not predicted by current loudness models.

show abstract

“…Still, loudness judgments can be affected by a large variety of additional factors. These include other physical sound characteristics such as the spectral content or stimulus duration (overview in Jesteadt and Leibold, 2011), the particular task or context (Marks and Florentine, 2011;Arieh and Marks, 2011) as well as personal factors like the individual hearing status (Smeds and Leijon, 2011). Although being an especially important topic in the context of hearing loss, interindividual variability in loudness perception may be quite large even in a rather homogenous group of normal hearing listeners (see, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%