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.     

Matching functions between loudness and ten other continua1

Cross-modality matches have been made between loudness and ten other perceptual continua. The matching functions are all power functions. When the exponent values of the matching functions are divided by the exponent values previously determined for the various continua, the quotients predict values for the loudness exponent. A tentative consensus suggests that the loudness exponent may be about 0.64.     

Shift in stimulus range and the exponent of the power function for loudness

The exponent of the power function for loudness was tracked over the course of 60 trials with one stimulus range and compared to the exponent over the course of 60 subsequent trials with a different stimulus range. Three stimulus sets were used: (1) weak, a short range of relatively soft tones (45-55 dBA); (2) strong, a short range of relatively loud tones (64-74 dBA); and (3) complete, a longer range of soft to loud tones (40-90 dBA). All pairs of stimulus sets were tested, together with three control conditions in which no shift in range occurred. Ten subjects were run in each of the nine groups. For preshift trials, the mean exponent was lowest for the strong stimulus series, highest for the weak series, and at an intermediate value for the complete series. These differences were all significant. Following a shift in stimulus range, the weak series still yielded the highest exponent, but the exponents were not reliably different for the complete and strong series. Postshift exponents also depended significantly on the preshift range experienced by the subjects. These effects were not confined to the period immediately following the shift in range, but persisted for up to 60 trials.     

The measurement of loudness using direct comparisons of sensory intervals

Subjects were required in each trial to directly compare two pairs of tones and indicate which pair of tones had the greater loudness difference. Ten 1200 Hz tones differing only in intensity were employed. Subjects made binary comparisons among the 45 tone pairs which can be formed from the set of ten tones. The subjects' binary comparisons of the tone pairs were found to satisfy the transitivity and monotonicity requirements of a positive difference structure. These comparisons of loudness intervals were used to construct a rank order of loudness difference. A loudness scale was constructed from a nonmetric analysis of the rank order of loudness difference for the 45 tone pairs and indicated that loudness was a power function of sound pressure with an exponent of 0.26.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Loudness functions under inhibition

In both vision and hearing, a masking or inhibiting stimulus increases the slope (exponent) of the power function that relates sensation to stimulus. The power transformation applies only to the inhibited part of the function where the signal is fainter than the masking noise. Where the signal equals the noise, the function shows a discontinuous knee. Experiments were undertaken to see whether the loudness of a tone of 1000 Hz in a white noise would follow a model based on a constant signal-to-noise ratio at two locations, at the effective threshold and at the knee where the inhibited function meets the uninhibited function. The data accord with the slopes (exponents) generated by the model. The same model gives a fairly good account of the recruitment functions for ears suffering from cochlear involvement (e.g., Méniere’s disease). Regardless of degree of hearing loss, loudness recruitment reaches normal when the tone (1000 Hz) is about 30 dB above the affected threshold.     

Subjective hardness of compliant materials

The apparent hardness and softness of nine samples of compliant materials were scaled by direct magnitude estimation and by cross-modal matches to the apparent force exerted on a hand dynamometer and a finger dynamometer, and to the loudness of a band of white noise. The physical hardness (force/indentation) of the compliant specimens covered a range of more than 100 to 1, extending from a fairly soft sponge to a fairly hard block of rubber. The apparent hardness of the specimens was found to follow the psychophysical power law. Subjective hardness grows as the physical hardness raised to a power. The indicated exponent was about 0.8 for magnitude estimation, about 0.7 derived by calculation from handgrip matches, and about 0.6 derived by calculation from loudness matches.

Numerical estimates and cross-modal matches for softness gave functions that were approximately the reciprocal of the functions given for hardness. Hardness is a continuum on which there exists an upper threshold.     

Perceived vibration and the loudness of low-frequency tones

Vibration and low-frequency tones were scaled for loudness by two numerical estimation procedures and by cross-modality matching. The same ranges of frequencies, from 30 to 250 Hz, were delivered to the ear and to the fingertip. For vibratory loudness, two sets of power functions were obtained, of which the low-frequency set was somewhat steeper. Tonal loudness gave a family of power functions of approximately the same slope at all the frequencies tested. For frequencies above 100 Hz, the growth of loudness is about the same for both modalities. Below this frequency, vibratory loudness grows more rapidly than tonal loudness.     

Bisection of loudness

In a loudness bisection task, subjects varied one sound to lie halfway between two given sounds in terms of loudness. The two given sounds were varied from 30 to 90 dB in a 4 by 9 factorial design. Functional measurement methods based on monotone analysis provided good support for the bisection model, and yielded a loudness scale with an exponent of about .3, except for a falloff at lower intensities. Two other tasks, judging average loudness and difference in loudness of the two given sounds, yielded mixed results. In Experiment 2, in particular, the differencing judgments were not additive, even under monotone transformation. These analyses also indicated that previous applications of monotone analysis have typically lacked adequate power to allow any conclusion about the operative model. Overall, the present bisection scale agrees with Garner’s lambda scale, and the present theoretical approach agrees with that of Garner in its emphasis on algebraic models as a foundation for psychological measurement.     

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.     

Discriminability, loudness, and masking in the rat (Rattus norvegicus): a confirmation and extension

In Experiment 1, rats discriminated between two sound pressure levels (SPL) of a pure tone: standard (STD) SPLs of 84 and 74 dB and comparison (CO) SPLs 4, 14, and 24 dB below STD were tested in quiet and 60 dB noise at 4 and 12.5 kHz (24 conditions). The decibel difference between STD and CO accounted for only 43.52% of the variance in the signal detection measure of sensitivity, d', across conditions, whereas the loudness difference (LD = STD0.35 - CO0.35) accounted for 89.82% of the variance in d'. These results confirm and extend previous observations that: (a) equal decibel differences are not equally discriminable; (b) loudness for the rat increases as a power function of SPL with an exponent of 0.35: and (c) masked loudness is a linear function of loudness in quiet. In Experiment 2, the assumptions of normal distribution and equal variance implicit in the use of the d' measure were examined. Receiver operating characteristic curves that were well approximated by straight lines of unit slope in normal-normal coordinates were obtained and thereby validated the use of d' in Experiment 1.     

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.     

Deriving the loudness exponent from categorical judgments

The power function exponent for loudness is traditionally determined by means of a process of magnitude estimation. It is demonstrated in this paper that the exponent can also be obtained by using the procedure of absolute identification of sound intensity. It has been shown that subjects' responses to tones of a given intensity are distributed in a normal distribution whose variance depends on the range, R, over which the tones are distributed. By means of a standard statistical transformation, the normal density in log space is converted to the corresponding probability density in linear space. The power function exponent can then be obtained directly from the linear probability density. We also suggest that there is a direct relationship between the information calculated from experiments on absolute identification of sound intensity and the neurophysiological, poststimulus histogram measured in a nerve fiber in the auditory nerve.     

Loudness and loudness discrimination

A model is developed which holds that pure-tone intensity discrimination and suprathreshold loudness judgments are based on the same sensory representation. In this model, loudness is a power function of sound intensity. When two tones are presented sequentially, each gives rise to a loudness value along the sensory continuum. In intensity-discrimination experiments, threshold is reached when the loudness difference between the tones exceeds a criterial value. For suprathreshold presentations of tone pairs, judgments of loudness differences are based on the loudness difference between the two tones. The model is shown to accord well with data from both classes of experiments.     

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.     

Vibrotactile loudness addition

Os adjusted the intensity of vibration at a single locus on the right hand to a value equal in vibratory loudness to various patterns of vibration on the left hand. The patterns were created by 1 to 5 equated vibration generators, varied with respect to sensation level and distances among the vibrators. The results were: (a) increasing from 1 to 5 vibrators produced a doubling in vibratory loudness, (b) neither loudness level of the components nor distance among vibrators had any effect on the slope of the overall loudness growth function. as also adjusted the intensity of a white noise to equal in magnitude the patterns of vibration presented (a) to the left hand as before and (b) to loci distributed over the surface of the body. The results were the same as those obtained using a single vibrator as standard. The specific loci stimulated did not appear to have any effect on vibrotactile loudness addition.     

Monaural loudness adaptation for middle-intensity middle-frequency signals: the importance of measurement technique

Using the Simple Adaptation technique (SA) and the Ipsilateral Comparison Paradigm (ICP), the authors studied monaural loudness adaptation to a middle-intensity [60 dB(A)] tone at signal frequencies of 250, 1000, and 4000 Hz in the left and right ears. Adaptation effects were absent when the SA procedure was used. However, they were observed uniformly across all frequency values with the ICP, a result that challenges the assertion in the literature, on the basis of SA measures, that loudness adaptation for middle-intensity signals occurs only at frequencies above 4000 Hz. The ICP features periodic intensity modulations (+/-10 dB relative to the base signal) to accommodate listeners' needs for referents by which they can gauge subtle changes in the loudness of the adapting tone, a key component that is missing in the SA method. Adaptation effects in this investigation were similar in both ears, supporting the equal susceptibility assumption common in loudness adaptation studies.     

Vibrotactile loudness addition

Os adjusted the intensity of vibration at a single locus on the right hand to a value equal in vibratory loudness to various patterns of vibration on the left hand. The patterns were created by 1 to 5 equated vibration generators, varied with respect to sensation level and distances among the vibrators. The results were: (a) increasing from 1 to 5 vibrators produced a doubling in vibratory loudness, (b) neither loudness level of the components nor distance among vibrators had any effect on the slope of the overall loudness growth function. Os also adjusted the intensity of a white noise to equal in magnitude the patterns of vibration presented (a) to the left hand as before and(b) to loci distributed over the surface of the body. The results were the same as those obtained using a single vibrator as standard. The specific loci stimulated did not appear to have any effect on vibrotactile loudness addition.