Loudness of non‐steady‐state sounds

Namba, Seiichiro; Kuwano, Sonoko; Fastl, H.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-5884.2008.00372.x

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…, Glasberg & Moore, 2005), it would be informative to compare judgements to model predictions not just for these computationally-intensive models, but more simplified approaches ( e.g. , Namba et al, 2008) that could easily be implemented into the computational constraints of current hearing-aid technology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Level Discrimination of Speech Sounds by Hearing-Impaired Individuals With and Without Hearing Amplification

Whitmer

Akeroyd

2011

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives-The current study was designed to see how hearing-impaired individuals judge level differences between speech sounds with and without hearing amplification. It was hypothesized that hearing-aid compression should adversely affect the user's ability to judge level differences.Design-Thirty-eight hearing-impaired participants performed an adaptive tracking procedure to determine their level-discrimination thresholds for different word and sentence tokens, as well as speech-spectrum noise, with and without their hearing aids. Eight normal-hearing participants performed the same task for comparison.Results-Level discrimination for different word and sentence tokens was more difficult than the discrimination of stationary noises. Word level discrimination was significantly more difficult than sentence level discrimination. There were no significant differences, however, between mean performance with and without hearing aids, and no correlations between performance and various hearing-aid measurements.Conclusions-There is a clear difficulty in judging the level differences between words or sentences relative to differences between broadband noises, but this difficulty was found for both hearing-impaired and normal-hearing individuals, and had no relation to hearing-aid compression measures. The lack of a clear adverse effect of hearing-aid compression on level discrimination is suggested to be due to the low effective compression ratios of currently fit hearing aids.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Level Discrimination of Speech Sounds by Hearing-Impaired Individuals With and Without Hearing Amplification

Whitmer

Akeroyd

2011

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One possibility to explain these effects is to base reaction time on the integration of intensity, as is known from work on loudness (Namba et al, 2008). This was done successfully for Experiment 3.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The concept of using L AE as an indicator of temporal integration of loudness (Namba et al, 2008) simply means that intensity integrated over time correlates with loudness. In Chocholle (1944, one participant), blue squares results of Schlittenlacher et al (2014, 20 participants), black triangles data from our laboratory for 21 further participants.…”

Section: Linking Rt To Modelling Of Loudnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Simple reaction time to the onset of time-varying sounds

Schlittenlacher

Ellermeier

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although auditory simple reaction time (RT) is usually defined as the time elapsing between the onset of a stimulus and a recorded reaction, a sound cannot be specified by a single point in time. Therefore, the present work investigates how the period of time immediately after onset affects RT. By varying the stimulus duration between 10 and 500 msec, this critical duration was determined to fall between 32 and 40 milliseconds for a 1-kHz pure tone at 70 dB SPL. In a second experiment, the role of the buildup was further investigated by varying the rise time and its shape. The increment in RT for extending the rise time by a factor of ten was about 7 to 8 msec. There was no statistically significant difference in RT between a Gaussian and linear rise shape. A third experiment varied the modulation frequency and point of onset of amplitude-modulated tones, producing onsets at different initial levels with differently rapid increase or decrease immediately afterwards. The results of all three experiments results were explained very well by a straightforward extension of the parallel grains model (Miller and Ulrich Cogn. Psychol. 46, 101-151, 2003), a probabilistic race model employing many parallel channels. The extension of the model to time-varying sounds made the activation of such a grain depend on intensity as a function of time rather than a constant level. A second approach by mechanisms known from loudness produced less accurate predictions.

show abstract

“…Recently, the sound quality of various sounds has been examined to create more pleasant sounds or specific sounds such as warning signals that provide helpful information [ 7 – 16 ]. Generally, the main target for improving noise from various sources, particularly machines, is the reduction of sound pressure levels; however, technical and economic concerns often limit the capacity to reduce sound pressure levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical Analysis for Subjective and Objective Evaluations of Dental Drill Sounds

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sound produced by a dental air turbine handpiece (dental drill) can markedly influence the sound environment in a dental clinic. Indeed, many patients report that the sound of a dental drill elicits an unpleasant feeling. Although several manufacturers have attempted to reduce the sound pressure levels produced by dental drills during idling based on ISO 14457, the sound emitted by such drills under active drilling conditions may negatively influence the dental clinic sound environment. The physical metrics related to the unpleasant impressions associated with dental drill sounds have not been determined. In the present study, psychological measurements of dental drill sounds were conducted with the aim of facilitating improvement of the sound environment at dental clinics. Specifically, we examined the impressions elicited by the sounds of 12 types of dental drills in idling and drilling conditions using a semantic differential. The analysis revealed that the impressions of dental drill sounds varied considerably between idling and drilling conditions and among the examined drills. This finding suggests that measuring the sound of a dental drill in idling conditions alone may be insufficient for evaluating the effects of the sound. We related the results of the psychological evaluations to those of measurements of the physical metrics of equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure levels (LAeq) and sharpness. Factor analysis indicated that impressions of the dental drill sounds consisted of two factors: “metallic and unpleasant” and “powerful”. LAeq had a strong relationship with “powerful impression”, calculated sharpness was positively related to “metallic impression”, and “unpleasant impression” was predicted by the combination of both LAeq and calculated sharpness. The present analyses indicate that, in addition to a reduction in sound pressure level, refining the frequency components of dental drill sounds is important for creating a comfortable sound environment in dental clinics.

show abstract

Loudness of non‐steady‐state sounds

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 publications

Level Discrimination of Speech Sounds by Hearing-Impaired Individuals With and Without Hearing Amplification

Level Discrimination of Speech Sounds by Hearing-Impaired Individuals With and Without Hearing Amplification

Simple reaction time to the onset of time-varying sounds

Statistical Analysis for Subjective and Objective Evaluations of Dental Drill Sounds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About