On predicting exponents for cross-modality matches

Mashhour and Hosman used magnitude estimations to scale seven continua: line length, time duration, finger span, loudness of noise, weight, gray reflectance, and surface area. The first four continua also served as the adjusted stimuli in 17 cross-modality matches among the various continua. Contrary to the view expressed by Mashhour and Hosman, the results appear to support the psychophysical power law. A reanalysis of the data shows that the exponents of the power functions obtained in cross-modality matches agree with the exponents of the power functions produced by magnitude estimations, provided correction is made for the regression effect. The measured discrepancies between the exponents predicted and those actually obtained show scatter that is consistent with that of other experiments. In particular, the scatter accords well with the distribution of 68 exponents predicted by Moskowitz from experiments in which Os matched both number and loudness to various taste concentrations.     

Variability and sequential effects in cross-modality matching of area and loudness

Individual subjects' performance was examined for cross-modality matching (CMM) of loudness to visual area, as well as for magnitude estimation (ME) of the component continua. Average exponents of power functions relating response magnitude to stimulus intensity were .73 for area, .20 for loudness, and 2.44 for CMM. Predictions of the CMM exponent based on ME were higher than the empirical values, whereas more accurate predictions were made from magnitude production exponents obtained in a previous study. Sequential dependencies were assessed by comparing the response on trial n to the response on trial n--1. The coefficient of variation of the response ratio Rn/Rn-1 was systematically related to the stimulus ratio Sn/Sn-1 for both area and loudness. The coefficient was lowest for ratios near 1 and increased for larger or smaller values. For CMM, the coefficient of variation appeared to be independent of stimulus ratios. The correlation between log Rn and log Rn-1 was also related to Sn/Sn-1 for both ME and CMM. The correlation was highest when Sn/Sn-1 was 1 and dropped to 0 with increasing stimulus separation, but CMM yielded a shallower function than ME.     

Extraversion and the effects of frequency and intensity on the auditory brainstem evoked response

Extraversion was positively correlated with the latency of wave I of the auditory brainstem evoked response (BER) at 75, 80 and 85 dB of intensity. Extraverts also tended to display longer latency for wave V than introverts to high frequency, 80-dB tone bursts and to click stimuli at intensity levels which ranged from 55 to 85 dB (SPL). These results are consistent with reports of greater auditory sensitivity (d') and enhanced amplitude of the late (N₁–P₂) cortical evoked response for introverts. The absence of differences in interpeak latency, or central transmission time. center the effects on wave I which is thought to be generated by the cochlear nerve. The present findings may require the elaboration of the neurophysiological bases of extraversion, which presently focuses on differences in cortico-reticular arousal systems, to accomodate individual differences in axonal or synaptic transmission.     

Brightness and loudness as functions of stimulus duration

The brightness of white light and the loudness of white noise were measured by magnitude estimation for sets of stimuli that varied in intensity and duration. Brightness and loudness both grow as power functions of duration up to a critical duration, beyond which apparent magnitude is essentially independent of duration. For brightness, the critical duration decreases with increasing intensity, but for loudness the critical duration is nearly constant at about 150 msec. Loudness and brightness also grow as power functions of intensity. The loudness exponent is the same for all durations, but the brightness exponent is about half again as large for short durations as for long. The psychophysical power functions were used to generate equal-loudness and equal-brightness functions, which specify the combinations of intensity E and duration T that produce the same apparent magnitude. Below the critical duration ET equals k for equal brightness, and ET^a equals k for equal loudness. The value a is about 0.7 for threshold and about 1.25 for supraliminal loudness.     

Binaural summation after learning psychophysical functions for loudness

Do response-related processes affect perceptual processes? Sometimes they may: Algom and Marks (1990) produced different loudness exponents by manipulating stimulus range, and thereby also modified the rules of loudness summation determined by magnitude scaling. The present study manipulated exponents by having a dozen subjects learn prescribed power functions with exponents of 0.3, 0.6, or 1.2 (re sound pressure). Subjects gave magnitude estimates of the loudness of binaural signals during training, and of monaural and binaural signals after training. During training, subjects’ responses followed the nominal functions reasonably well. Immediately following training, subjects applied the numeric response scales uniformly to binaural and monaural signals alike; the implicit monaural-binaural loudness matches, and thus the basic rules underlying binaural summation, were unaffected by the exponent learned. Comparison of these results with those of Algom and Marks leads us to conclude that changing stimulus range likely influences underlying perceptual events, whereas “calibrating” a loudness scale through pretraining leaves the perceptual processes unaffected.     

Loudness and reaction time: I

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 at 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.     

Brightness and loudness as functions of stimulus duration

The brightness of white light and the loudness of white noise were measured by magnitude estimation for sets of stimuli that varied in intensity and duration. Brightness and loudness both grow as power functions of duration up to a critical duration, beyond which apparent magnitude is essentially independent of duration. For brightness, the critical duration decreases with increasing intensity, but for loudness the critical duration is nearly constant at about 150 msec. Loudness and brightness also grow as power functions of intensity. The loudness exponent is the same for all durations, but the brightness exponent is about half again as large for short durations as for long. The psychophysical power functions were used to generate equal-loudness and equal-brightness functions, which specify the combinations of intensity E and duration T that produce the same apparent magnitude. Below the critical duration ET equals k for equal brightness, and ET^a equa Is k for equal loudness. The value a is about 0.7 for threshold and about 1.25 for supraliminal loudness.     

Binaural and temporal integration of the loudness of tones and noises

Subjects judged the loudness of tones (Experiment 1) and of bursts of noise (Experiment 2) that varied in intensity and duration as well as in mode of presentation (monaural vs. binaural). Both monaural and binaural loudness, for both types of signals, obeyed the bilinear-interaction prediction of the classic temporal integration model. The loudness of short tones grows as a power function of both intensity and duration with different exponents for the two factors (.2 and .3, respectively). The loudness of wide-band noises grows as a power function of duration (with an exponent of approximately .6) but not of sound pressure. For tones, binaural summation was constant but fell short of full additivity. For noises, summation changed across level and duration. Temporal summation followed the same course for monaural and binaural tonal stimuli but not for noise stimuli. Notwithstanding these differences between tone and noise, we concluded that binaural and temporal summation are independently operating integrative networks within the auditory system. The usefulness of establishing the underlying metric structure for temporal summation is emphasized.     

Individual psychophysical functions for 28 odorants

Individual scales of odor intensity were obtained for 28 different chemical compounds by the method of magnitude estimation. Eleven Ss participated in an experiment with 196 olfactory stimuli which differed in both quality and intensity. It was found (1) that power functions described the relationship between partial vapor pressure of the odorants and their subjective odor intensity for all Ss, (2) that all exponents were less than one but varied greatly between Ss, (3) that consistent intraindividual differences in the exponents of different odorants exist, and (4) that these are attributable to perceptual differences rather than to response bias.     

Magnitude estimation of apparent sums and differences

Os first scaled two continua by magnitude estimation: apparent area of circles and loudness of 1,000-Hz tones. They then gave magnitude estimations of apparent sums and apparent differences for IS pairs of stimuli on each of the two continua. The scales for sums and differences were in some cases nearly linearly related to the power function obtained when the same as scaled the underlying continuum. However, systematic departure from linearity was the usual result. The power law exponents obtained were generally smaller than those usually reported for the two sensory continua.     

Stimulus range,number of categories,and the “virtual” exponent

Three different stimulus modalities (line length, number, and sound pressure) were judged by magnitude scaling techniques and by 7-, 15-, 31-, and 75-point category scales. All of the 40 subjects were given the same number stimuli, but two different sound-pressure ranges were presented (each to 20 subjects) and four different line-length ranges were presented (each to 10 subjects). Analyses of lack of fit for various simple functions were performed to determine bestfitting functions. The simple power function was often found to be an adequate fit to the data for all the response modalities used, although all of the response modalities were sensitive to changes in stimulus range. For simple power functions, the category-scale exponent was a function of both the range of stimuli and the number of categories provided. Category scales did not always produce exponents smaller than those obtained with magnitude estimation, which calls into question the concept of a virtual exponent for category scales.     

Cross-modality matching functions generated by magnitude estimation

It is possible to generate cross-modality matching functions by having subjects make magnitude estimates of sets of stimuli appropriate to different modalities. The sets are interspersed among each other in the same test session and judged on a common absolute scale of sensory magnitude. An appropriate statistical device locates stimulus levels that appear, on the average, to match. The method is fast, efficient, circumvents the need for continuous stimulus adjustment, and holds promise for the study of the individual as well as the average psychophysical function. To illustrate its potential uses, advantages, and limitations, we used the method to generate cross-modality matching functions relating loudness and brightness. Compared to the scales of loudness and brightness generated by the magnitude estimations of the same stimuli, the matching functions (1) conform better to power functions, (2) may show less variation in slope (exponent), and (3) show far less variation in absolute magnitude (position).     

Individual differences in magnitude estimation of loudness

Twenty-two male and female subjects, aged 15 to 31 years, participated in two sessions, 11 weeks apart, of magnitude estimations of loudness. Stable individual differences in the exponent of the psychophysical power law, ψ=k?ⁿ, were shown. The correlation between subjects’ exponents of the first and second sessions was +.59. The generality of these findings and the origin of the individual differences were discussed.     

Individual differences in loudness processing and loudness scales

Parameters of the psychophysical function for loudness (a 1000-Hz tone) were assessed for individual subjects in three experiments: (a) binaural loudness summation, (b) temporal loudness summation, and (c) judgments of loudness intervals. The loudness scales that underlay the additive binaural summation closely approximated S. S. Stevens's (1956) sone scale but were nonlinearly related to the scales that underlay the subtractive interval judgments, the latter approximating Garner's (1954) lambda scale. Interindividual differences in temporal summation were unrelated to differences in scaling performance or in binaural summation. Although the exponents of magnitude-estimation functions and the exponents underlying interval judgments varied considerably from subject to subject, exponents computed on the basis of underlying binaural summation varied less. The results suggest that interindividual variation in the exponent of magnitude-estimation functions largely reflects differences in the ways that subjects use numbers to describe loudnesses and that the sensory representations of loudness are fairly uniform, though probably not wholly uniform, among people with normal hearing. The magnitude of individual variation in at least one measure of auditory intensity processing, namely, temporal summation, seems at least as great as the magnitude of the variation in the underlying loudness scale.     

Critical bands and mixed-frequency scaling: sequential dependencies, equal-loudness contours, and power function exponents

Stimuli of random intensities and various but predictable frequencies were presented for repeated magnitude estimations on the same scale (mixed-frequency scaling). The frequencies for a particular judgment session were selected so that they lay either inside each other's critical bands or outside them. Contrastive dependencies of current magnitude estimation responses on previous stimuli of a different frequency were significantly affected by whether the two frequencies were inside or outside each other's critical bands, while assimilative dependencies were not. This reinforces the idea that such dependencies are sensory in nature and arise from a different mechanism than do the assimilative dependencies. Mixed-frequency scaling of loudness also gives rise to cross-frequency matching functions from which equal-loudness contours can be calculated. These contours calculated from the present judgments are similar to those produced from other methods, even when they are extrapolated to untested intensities. Power function exponents for loudness scaled in this way are larger for lower frequencies, as has been found in previous studies, and are consistent with the flattening of the calculated equal-loudness contours for low frequencies as intensity increases.     

Comparison of two theories of "ratio" and "difference" judgments

This article examines the hypothesis that judges compare stimuli by ratio and subtractive operations when instructed to judge" "ratios" and "differences." Rule and Curtis hold that magnitude estimations are a power function of subjective values, with an exponent between 1.1 and 2.1. Accordingly, the two-operation model tested assumes magnitude estimations of "ratios" are a comparable power function of subjective ratios. In contrast, Birnbaum and Veit theorize that judges compare two stimuli by subraction for both "ratio" and "difference" instructions and that magnitude estimations of "ratios" are approximately an exponential function of subjective differences. Three tests were used to compare the theory of one operation with the two-operation theory for the data of nine experiments. The results strongly favor the theory that observers use the same operation for both instructions.     

Identification variability as a measure of loudness: an application to gender differences.

It is well known that discrimination response variability increases with stimulus intensity, closely related to Weber's Law. It is also an axiom that sensation magnitude increases with stimulus intensity. Following earlier researchers such as Thurstone, Garner, and Durlach and Braida, we explored a new method of exploiting these relationships to estimate the power function exponent relating sound pressure level to loudness, using the accuracy with which listeners could identify the intensity of pure tones. The log standard deviation of the normally distributed identification errors increases linearly with stimulus range in decibels, and the slope, a, of the regression is proportional to the loudness exponent, n. Interestingly, in a demonstration experiment, the loudness exponent estimated in this way is greater for females than for males.     

Stimulus sequence and the exponent of the power function for loudness

In two experiments, 15 and 13 subjects estimated the loudness of 12 sound-pressure levels (38-104 dB; 6-dB intervals) of a 1000-Hz tone by the method of magnitude estimation with a modulus assigned to the first stimulus presented. The tone duration was 1 sec. and the interstimulus interval was 6 sec. The presentation order was systematically ascending-descending in one experiment and balanced-irregular in the other. The results indicate that (1) loudness is a power function of sound pressure with an exponent of 0.60 for the systematic order and 0.29 for the irregular order. (2) For both the irregular and systematic orders, a large step-size (12 or 18 dB) between the stimulus on Trial n and on Trial n-1 (or n-3) results in a slight assimilation effect. This also occurs for the small step-size (6 dB) in the irregular order. (3) The size of momentary exponents (based on two points, Trials n and n-1 or n-3) depends on the sound pressures of successive stimuli, whether the steps are positive or negative, and whether the stimuli have been presented in systematic or irregular order. For positive steps, the momentary exponent is lower for a soft tone (Trial n) than for a loud tone, whereas for negative steps the momentary exponent is lower for a loud tone than for a soft tone. These effects ar more pronounced when these stimuli are presented in an irregular order. A relative judgment model is offered for magnitude estimation. It assumes that subjects judge the loudness of a stimulus in terms of three reference markers: the minimum and maximum sound pressures as well as the sound pressure of the previous stimulus.     

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

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-Hz pure 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.     

Stimulus discriminability in the magnitude estimation and category rating of loudness

Thirty-three Ss made category ratings and magnitude estimations of 10 auditory stimuli differing in loudness. The results from each task were examined in terms of the response uncertainty conditional upon each stimulus. The results did not support the suggestion that category judgments are influenced by the relative discriminability of stimuli in a way which is not characteristic of magnitude estimates, but were found to be consistent with the subjective Standard hypothesis. It is argued that the observed quasi-logarithmic relationship between category scale and ratio scale values reflects the constraints placed upon responses in category rating tasks.