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.     

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.     

Binaural summation of loudness: Noise and two-tone complexes

A series of six experiments used the method of magnitude estimation to assess how the two ears sum the loudness of stimuli with various spectra. The results showed that the binaural system sums loudnesses by at least two distinct sets of rules, one applicable to narrow-band stimuli (complete loudness summation), another to wide-band noises (partial summation, dependent on level). The main findings were: (1) Narrow-band noise (Vi-octave bands at 1,000 Hz) showed complete binaural loudness summation, like that previously reported for pure tones (Marks, 1978a). At all but low SPL, a monaural stimulus must be 10 dB greater than a binaural stimulus to be equally loud; a stimulus ratio of 10 dB corresponds to a loudness ratio of 2:1 on Stevens’ sone scale. (2) Wide-band noise (300-4,800 Hz) showed only partial summation, the subadditivity being confined largely to levels below about 60 dB SPL. This result obtained both with bands of white noise (flat spectrum) and pink noise (—3 dB/ octave). (3) Binaural summation of two-tone complexes depended slightly on frequency spacing. Narrow spacing (860 and 1,160 Hz) gave summation equal to about 10 dB, like that of narrowband noises and single tones, whereas wider spacing (675 and 1,475 Hz) gave less summation, equal to about 9 dB, and more like wide-band noise; however, a very wide spacing (300 and 4,800 Hz) gave summation like that of narrow-band noises and single pure tones.     

Range and regression, loudness scales, and loudness processing: toward a context-bound psychophysics

How does context affect basic processes of sensory integration and the implicit psychophysical scales that underlie those processes? Five experiments examined how stimulus range and response regression determine characteristics of (a) psychophysical scales for loudness and (b) 3 kinds of intensity summation: binaural loudness summation, summation of loudness between tones widely spaced in frequency, and temporal loudness summation. Context affected the overt loudness scales in that smaller power-function exponents characterized larger versus smaller range of stimulation and characterized magnitude estimation versus magnitude production. More important, however, context simultaneously affected the degree of loudness integration as measured in terms of matching stimulus levels. Thus, stimulus range and scaling procedure influence not only overt response scales, but measures of underlying intensity processing.     

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

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 conditions 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.     

Sensory and cognitive factors in judgments of loudness

One thousand Hertz tones were presented at equal or unequal intensities to the two ears. In a binaural-summation experiment, the presentation of components was simultaneous, the auditory system integrated the components automatically, and the subjects judged the loudness of the unitary sensation. In two cognitive-summation experiments, the presentation of components was successive, and the subjects had to integrate the two sensations consciously to judge their "total loudness." Results of all three experiments are consistent with models of linear summation of "loudness," but the loudness scales differ in the two tasks: The scales that underlie binaural summation and cognitive summation are nonlinearly related. This outcome suggests two nested processes: First, the auditory system transduces stimulus energy to loudness sensations by means of a nonlinear function; second, tasks that require subjects to judge combinational relations between sensations may impose additional nonlinear transformations on the sensations before the latter are combined.     

Does stimulus context affect loudness or only loudness judgments?

Marks (1988) reported that when equal-loudness matches were inferred from magnitude estimates of loudness for tones of two different frequencies, the matches were affected by changes in the stimulus intensity range at both frequencies. Marks interpreted these results as reflecting the operation of response biases in the subjects' estimates; that is, the effect of range was to alter subjects' judgments but not necessarily the perception of loudness itself. We investigated this effect by having subjects choose which of two tone pairs defined the larger loudness interval. By using tones of two frequencies, and varying their respective intensity ranges, we reproduced Marks' result in a procedure devoid of numerical responses. When the tones at one frequency are all soft, but the tones at the other frequency are not all soft, cross-frequency loudness matches are different from those obtained with other intensity range combinations. This suggests that stimulus range affects the perception of loudness in addition to whatever effects it may have on numerical judgments of loudness.     

Binaural loudness gain measured by simple reaction time

In order to yield equal loudness, different studies using scaling or matching methods have found binaural level differences between monaural and diotic presentations ranging from less than 2 dB to as much as 10 dB. In the present study, a reaction time methodology was employed to measure the binaural level difference producing equal reaction time (BLDERT). Participants had to respond to the onset of 1-kHz pure tones with sound pressure levels ranging from 45 to 85 dB, and being presented to the right, the left, or both ears. Equal RTs for monaural and diotic presentation (BLDERTs) were obtained with a level difference of approximately 5 dB. A second experiment showed that different results obtained for the left and right ear are largely due to the responding hand, with ipsilateral responses being faster than contralateral ones. A third experiment investigated the BLDERT for dichotic stimuli, tracing the transition between binaural and monaural stimulation. The results of all three RT experiments are consistent with current models of binaural loudness and contradict earlier claims of perfect binaural summation.     

Empirical evaluation of a model of global psychophysical judgments: III. A form for the psychophysical function and intensity filtering

In part I, a concept of ratio estimation is defined and it is shown that if such estimates depend only upon the physical ratio of the signal to the reference signal, the psychophysical function must be a power function. Assuming the same exponents for each component, an invariance condition, equivalent to a sum of power functions, is studied empirically for binaural loudness. It is fully or partially sustained for 19 of 22 respondents. Since failures may be attributable to different exponents in the two ears, the ratio of the two exponents is estimated but that fails to explain the failures. Other possible explanations are suggested. In part II, an intensity filtering model is presented, accounting for the phenomenon where monaural loudness matches show a bias depending on the matching ear. We show (a) that the existence of such a bias does not alter the prior experimental results; and (b) assuming the power function, that five respondents attenuate the opposite ear and two enhance it.     

Power functions of loudness magnitude estimations and auditory brainstem evoked responses

The correspondence between subjective and neural response to change in acoustic intensity was considered by deriving power functions from subjective loudness estimations and from the amplitude and latency of auditory brainstem evoked response components (BER). Thirty-six subjects provided loudness magnitude estimations of 2-sec trains of positive polarity click stimuli, 20/sec, at intensity levels ranging from 55 to 90 dB in 5-dB steps. The loudness power function yielded an exponent of .48. With longer trains of the same click stimuli, the exponents of BER latency measures ranged from -.14 for wave I to -.03 for later waves. The exponents of BER amplitude-intensity functions ranged from .40 to .19. Although these exponents tended to be larger than exponents previously reported, they were all lower than the exponent derived from the subjective loudness estimates, and a clear correspondence between the exponents of the loudness and BER component intensity functions was not found.     

Range and regression effects in magnitude scaling

The relation between power law exponents obtained by magnitude estimation and magnitude production was studied for both loudness and perceived distance. While the results confirm the usual finding of higher values for production for relatively large stimulus ranges, just the opposite occurs when the stimulus range is short, necessitating a revision of the Stevens-Greenbaum regression principle. The relation between range and exponent was explored, both for the case in which several intensities are presented for judgment and for the simpler case of only two intensities. In both cases, a power relation was described relating stimulus ratios to judgmental ratios, with exponents containing both range-dependent and range-independent components.     

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.     

Weber’s law,the “near miss,” and binaural detection

Weber functions (ΔI/I in dB) for gated 250-Hz tones were studied for monaural and several binaural stimulus configurations (homophasic, and antiphasic with varying phase angle for addition of signal to masker). The various cues for discrimination of signal plus masker from masker alone are functions of intensity increments at one or both ears, an intensity increment at one ear coupled with a decrement at the other, or the introduction of a phase difference between the ears. The decline of the Weber fraction with increasing masker level (the “near miss” to Weber’s law) was confirmed for monaural discrimination over the entire 40-dB range, and a similar rate of decline was found for various binaural stimuli over the lower half of that range. The data also confirm the individual differences found in other studies for sensitivity favoring either interaural amplitude or interaural phase shifts.     

On loudness enhancement of a tone burst by a preceding tone burst

The loudness level of a second tone burst in a monotic burst pair is investigated as a function of the intensity and frequency of the first burst relative to the corresponding variables of the second burst and as a function of the interburst time interval. The loudness level is measured with the help of a third, comparison burst whose frequency is the same as that of the second burst. The results, in connection with preceding results, show beyond any reasonable doubt that loudness effects in pairs of sound bursts are controlled by two perceptual processes: loudness enhancement and loudness summation. The first refers to the loudness of the second burst, the second, to the overall loudness of the burst pair. The time and frequency functions of the two processes are fundamentally different.     

Effects of stimulus context on magnitude estimations and category ratings of perceived loudness--the spacing of intensity intervals

Effects of stimulus context on magnitude estimations and on category ratings were examined for a range of stimulus intensities of a 1-kHz tone. The stimuli were distributed in equal-interval steps of energy so they formed a perceptual cluster of high-intensity tones with a perceptual outlier at the lowest intensity. According to the Invariance Principle, the shape of the response function should not be affected by the distribution of stimulus intensities. However, neither magnitude estimations nor category ratings yielded the linear functions predicted from the Invariance Principle when plotted on log-log axes. Instead, both procedures yielded concave-upward response functions for the group data as well as for the individual data sets of the six subjects. Moreover, unlike previous reports of a nonlinear relationship, we found a linear relationship between magnitude estimations and category ratings. Rather than implying an equivalence of the underlying sensory scales, however, our results may imply subjects used a similar attention strategy for both procedures. We consider some theoretical suggestions, including an attention-band concept, for modification of a multistage stimulus-response (S-R) transformation model.     

Tactile vibration: Change of exponent with frequency

When cross-modality matches were made between a 60-Hz vibration and such other continua as electric current through the finger, number, force of handgrip, and both binaural and monaural loudness, the exponent of the power function for vibration was found to be about 1.0 at 60 Hz. The dependence of the exponent on frequency has been studied in a series of intramodality matching experiments. The exponent appears to reach its largest value in the vicinity of 30 Hz and its lowest value in the vicinity of 250 Hz. The highest value is roughly twice the lowest value. Over the low-frequency range, there is a suggestive similarity between the power functions for vibration and those for auditory loudness. As a vibration sensor, the ear may behave much like the finger.     

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.     

Changing-loudness aftereffect following simulated movement: implications for channel hypotheses concerning sound level change and movement.

Listening to a tone changing unidirectionally in sound level causes an illusion of changing loudness in a steady tone afterward. This aftereffect may indicate channels for detecting the feature of change in sound level, which would primarily concern dynamic sound localization. Three subjects, one of whom was the author, participated in this study. The author predicted that opposite adaptation of the ears (the adapting stimulus is heard to move from one ear to the other) should lead to a movement aftereffect. This was not reported by the subjects. However, the subjects did report a changing-loudness aftereffect in a monaural test stimulus, and the characteristics of the changing-loudness aftereffect (such as its magnitude) were consistent with previous data, suggesting a two-stage channel hypothesis: Output from channels for several features, including sound-level change, simultaneously stimulate movement channels.     

Binaural release from temporal induction

This study examined the effects of interaural phase difference (IPhD) relations in temporal induction (TI)—that is, the perceived continuity of a fainter sound (inducee) through an interrupting higher amplitude sound (inducer). The extent of TI was measured both directly as the upper amplitude level for continuity and indirectly as the loudness reduction of the inducer. It was found that TI was inhibited when the IPhD of the inducer and the IPhD of the inducee differed. It was also found that the extent of induction was positively related to the masking potential of the inducer as measured by the binaural masking level difference procedure. These results suggest that TI involves processes that are affected by interaural phase differences and that the masking potential rule, shown by previous studies to apply in the frequency domain, applies also in the IPhD domain. The present findings are consistent with the hypothesis that TI results from allocation of a portion of the neural excitation produced by the inducer over to the inducee if the inducer has the appropriate masking potential. As a consequence, obliterated signals can be selectively restored on the basis of both frequency-specific monaural cues and azimuth-related binaural cues, abilities that can enhance detection of signals under the noisy conditions of everyday life.     

Stimulus context and absolute magnitude estimation: a study of individual differences

The effect of stimulus context on absolute-magnitude-estimation (AME) judgments was examined by determining whether the loudness judgment of a tone is influenced by the intensities of other tones presented within the session. A group of 18 subjects was tested in separate sessions in which they judged stimuli within either a low (10-60 dB SL) or a high (40-90 dB SL) range of intensities. Examination of the results of individual subjects revealed that judgments of stimuli common to the two ranges were, in most subjects, unaffected or only slightly affected by the position of the range. The judgments of 2 subjects who failed to follow the instructions, however, showed very large context effects due to changing the stimulus range. The results of a second experiment, in which 22 subjects judged the loudness of tones within either a narrow (35-65 dB SL) or a wide (20-80 dB SL) range, revealed that, in all but 1 subject, the width of the range had no systematic effect on the loudness judgments of stimuli common to both ranges. This was also true 1 month later when 16 of the subjects returned to the laboratory to judge the loudness of tones within an even wider range of 10-90 dB SL. It was concluded that AME judgments are relatively insensitive to the potential biasing influences of stimulus context.