scholarly journals Deriving loudness growth functions from categorical loudness scaling data

2017 ◽  
Vol 142 (6) ◽  
pp. 3660-3669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcin Wróblewski ◽  
Daniel M. Rasetshwane ◽  
Stephen T. Neely ◽  
Walt Jesteadt
Keyword(s):  
Growth Functions ◽  
Loudness Scaling ◽  
Loudness Growth

scholarly journals Loudness Scaling Test Based on Categorical Perception

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 637-648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bożena Kostek ◽  
Piotr Odya ◽  
Piotr Suchomski
Keyword(s):  
Categorical Perception ◽  
Calibration Procedure ◽  
Musical Instrument ◽  
Comfort Level ◽  
Growth Functions ◽  
Band Noise ◽  
Loudness Scaling ◽  
Natural Test ◽  
Growth Estimation ◽  
Loudness Growth

Abstract The main goal of this research study is focused on creating a method for loudness scaling based on categorical perception. Its main features, such as: way of testing, calibration procedure for securing reliable results, employing natural test stimuli, etc., are described in the paper and assessed against a procedure that uses 1/2-octave bands of noise (LGOB) for the loudness growth estimation. The Mann-Whitney U-test is employed to check whether the proposed method is statistically equivalent to LGOB. It is shown that loudness functions obtained in both methods are similar in the statistical context. Moreover, the band-filtered musical instrument signals are experienced as more pleasant than the narrow-band noise stimuli and the proposed test is performed in a shorter time. The method proposed may be incorporated into fitting hearing strategies or used for checking individual loudness growth functions and adapting them to the comfort level settings while listening to music.

Loudness Growth Functions and EABR Characteristics in Digisonic Cochlear Implantees

1999 ◽  
Vol 119 (2) ◽  
pp. 234-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Gallégo, S. Garnier, C. Micheyl,
Keyword(s):  
Growth Functions ◽  
Loudness Growth

An efficient, adaptive method of measuring loudness growth functions

1999 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
John Seymour ◽  
Harvey Dillon ◽  
Frances Grant ◽  
Denis Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Adaptive Method ◽  
Growth Functions ◽  
Loudness Growth

Aided Loudness Growth and Satisfaction with Everyday Loudness Perception in Compression Hearing Aid Users

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (03) ◽  
pp. 206-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu-Feng Shi ◽  
Karen A. Doherty ◽  
Jozef J. Zwislocki
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Magnitude Estimate ◽  
Absolute Magnitude ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Growth Functions ◽  
Para Determinar ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Loudness Growth ◽  
Estimate Procedure

The primary goal of this study was to examine the relationship between listeners' loudness growth and their satisfaction with loudness when wearing wide-dynamic-range compression (WDRC) hearing aids. An absolute-magnitude-estimate procedure was used to obtain listeners' unaided and aided loudness growth functions in response to a 500 and 2000 Hz warble tone. In general, listeners' unaided loudness growth functions were steeper than the average normal-hearing listeners' functions for both frequencies, and their aided loudness growth functions were shallower than their unaided functions. Loudness growth functions tended to be undercompressed for 500 Hz but overcompressed for 2000 Hz. The Profile of Aided Loudness (PAL) questionnaire was administered to determine listeners' loudness satisfaction in everyday listening situations. Most listeners were satisfied with their perception of soft, average, and loud environmental sounds, regardless of how well or not well their WDRC aids normalized their aided loudness growth. La meta primaria de este estudio fue examinar la relación entre el crecimiento de la apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad (sonoridad) en el oyente y su satisfacción con dicha sonoridad ante el uso de auxiliares auditivos con compresión de rango dinámico amplio (WDRC). Se utilizó un procedimiento de estimación absoluta de la magnitud para obtener en los sujetos las funciones de crecimiento de la sonoridad, con amplificación y sin ella, en respuesta a tonos modulados de 500 y 2000 Hz. En general, las funciones de crecimiento en la sonoridad sin amplificación mostraron una pendiente más pronunciada que dichas funciones para normo-oyentes, en ambas frecuencias, y en las mismas funciones con amplificación, las pendientes fueron menos profundas, que en aquellas sin amplificación. Las funciones de sonoridad tendieron a estar sub-comprimidas en 500 Hz pero sobre-comprimidas en 2000Hz. Se administró el cuestionario del Perfil de Sonoridad con Amplificación (PAL) para determinar la satisfacción del oyente a este incremento subjetivo de la intensidad en situaciones auditivas cotidianas. La mayor parte de los sujetos estuvieron satisfechos con su percepción de sonidos ambientales suaves, promedio y fuertes, independientemente de cuán bien sus auxiliares auditivos con WDRC normalizaran este crecimiento en la sonoridad.

Estimates of Loudness, Loudness Discomfort, and the Auditory Dynamic Range: Normative Estimates, Comparison of Procedures, and Test-Retest Reliability

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (02) ◽  
pp. 085-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
LaGuinn P. Sherlock ◽  
Craig Formby
Keyword(s):  
Reference Values ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Test Methods ◽  
Intersubject Variability ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Growth Functions ◽  
Upper Limit ◽  
Series Of Experiments ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Loudness Growth

The purpose of this series of experiments was to establish normative reference values for absolute and relative judgements of loudness discomfort and for the auditory dynamic range (DR), and to evaluate intersubject variability and intrasubject test-retest reliability for the respective measures of loudness discomfort. To establish the normal auditory DR, audiometric thresholds and loudness discomfort levels (LDLs) were measured from a group of 59 normal-hearing adults without sound tolerance problems. The resulting estimates of the LDL and DR were on the order of 100 dB HL and 95 dB, respectively. A subset (n = 18) of this larger group participated in further studies in which loudness growth functions and the upper limit of the auditory DR were measured by categorical scaling judgments. The findings revealed no significant differences between the test methods for absolute (LDL) and relative (categorical scaling) judgements of loudness discomfort, intersubject variability, or intrasubject test-retest reliability, and suggest that the simple LDL estimate of loudness discomfort is an efficient and valid clinical measure for characterizing the "threshold of discomfort."

The Effect of Nonlinear Amplitude Growth on the Speech Perception Benefits Provided by a Single-Sided Vocoder

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 745-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica M. Wess ◽  
Joshua G. W. Bernstein
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Functions ◽  
Spatial Configuration ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Spatial Separation ◽  
Compression And Expansion ◽  
Interaural Difference ◽  
Interaural Differences ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Perceptual Separation ◽  
Loudness Growth

PurposeFor listeners with single-sided deafness, a cochlear implant (CI) can improve speech understanding by giving the listener access to the ear with the better target-to-masker ratio (TMR; head shadow) or by providing interaural difference cues to facilitate the perceptual separation of concurrent talkers (squelch). CI simulations presented to listeners with normal hearing examined how these benefits could be affected by interaural differences in loudness growth in a speech-on-speech masking task.MethodExperiment 1 examined a target–masker spatial configuration where the vocoded ear had a poorer TMR than the nonvocoded ear. Experiment 2 examined the reverse configuration. Generic head-related transfer functions simulated free-field listening. Compression or expansion was applied independently to each vocoder channel (power-law exponents: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, or 2).ResultsCompression reduced the benefit provided by the vocoder ear in both experiments. There was some evidence that expansion increased squelch in Experiment 1 but reduced the benefit in Experiment 2 where the vocoder ear provided a combination of head-shadow and squelch benefits.ConclusionsThe effects of compression and expansion are interpreted in terms of envelope distortion and changes in the vocoded-ear TMR (for head shadow) or changes in perceived target–masker spatial separation (for squelch). The compression parameter is a candidate for clinical optimization to improve single-sided deafness CI outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document