Loudness recalibration as a function of level

Abstract

Recent research on loudness has focused on contextual effects on loudness, both assimilation and recalibration. The current experiments examined loudness recalibration [Marks, J. Exp. Psychol. 20, 382-396 (1994)]. In the first experiment, an adaptive tracking procedure was used to measure loudness recalibration as a function of standard- and recalibration-tone level. The standard-tone frequencies were 500 and 2500 Hz and the levels were 80-, 70-, 60-, and 40-dB SPL, and threshold. Seventeen dB of loudness recalibration was obtained (combined over both frequencies) in the 60-dB SPL condition. This amount of loudness recalibration, while substantial, is still less than that obtained by Marks (22 dB), using the method of paired comparisons. The second experiment sought to duplicate Marks' earlier experiment [Marks, J. Exp. Psychol. 20, 382-396 (1994), experiment 2]. The results of this experiment (21 dB) were almost identical to those obtained by Marks. The results of experiment 1 indicate that loudness recalibration is maximum when the recalibration tone is moderately louder than the subsequent standard tones. Relatively little loudness recalibration is exhibited when the standard-tone level equals the recalibration-tone level. In addition, there is no loudness recalibration at threshold. The tracking procedure also identified that the onset of loudness recalibration is very rapid. The difference between the maximum loudness recalibration obtained at each frequency (11 dB at 500 Hz, 6 dB at 2500 Hz) suggests that loudness recalibration is dependent upon the frequency of the standard tone.

Context effects in visual length perception: Role of ocular, retinal, and spatial location

“…This analysis supports the contention that DCEs are largely due to some kind of attenuation-like process resulting from stimulating an orientation-specific channel at relatively high stimulus levels, as has been reported for loudness (Mapes-Riordan & Yost, 1999;Marks, 1993Marks, , 1994. Superficially, these decrements in perceived magnitude resemble those that arise after presenting prolonged and relatively strong adapting or fatiguing stimuli.…”

Top-down gain control in the auditory system: Evidence from identification and discrimination experiments

“…The evidence from scaling and direct comparison experiments suggests that separate amplifiers may be associated with distinct critical bands so that the gain can be independently adjusted in different frequency regions (Mapes-Riordan & Yost, 1999;Marks 1992Marks , 1994Marks & Warner, 1991). If this is true, then the addition of a 5-kHz tone to an identification experiment involving 1-kHz tones should not alter the identifiability of the 1-kHz tones.…”

Posttransient shifts in auditory lateralization

“…Here, the terms peripheral and central are relative to the earliest site of binaural processing (superior olivary complex; Moore, 2000). In loudness, the reduction in perceived sound intensity is reported to be 9-10 dB, on average (Arieh & Marks, 2003b;Mapes-Riordan & Yost, 1999;Marks, 1996;Scharf et al, 2003); however, data on interaural transfer place the amount of loudness reduction at the contralateral ear at about 5-6 dB or less (Marks, 1996;Scharf et al, 2003). Those data also imply that about 4 dB of the magnitude of reduction is peripheral to the site where binaural information is combined.…”

“…Importantly, the fact that the efferent system responds more vigorously to ipsilateral than to contralateral stimulation (Liberman, 1988) is consistent with evidence that the reduction of loudness is greater when induced ipsilaterally rather than contralaterally, and with the shift in lateralization reported here. The olivocochlear efferent system, however, produces maximum suppression at near threshold levels, where ILR is virtually absent (Mapes-Riordan & Yost, 1999;Stankovic & Guinan, 1999).…”

“…The positive relation between response time and error rate is usually interpreted as change in suprathreshold responsiveness (Wickelgren, 1977). Second, ILR transcends a particular measurement method, being observed in loudness matching (Mapes-Riordan & Yost, 1999;Nieder, Buus, Florentine, & Scharf, 2003), magnitude estimation (Marks, 1988(Marks, , 1994Wagner & Scharf, 2006), judgments of loudness differences (Parker & Schneider, 1994;Schneider & Parker, 1990), and response time (Arieh & Marks, 2003a). Third, ILR is fast to set in but slow to dissipate: A significant amount of ILR was measured 225 msec after the onset of the inducer and was still evident dozen of seconds later (Arieh, Kelly, & Marks, 2005;Arieh & Marks, 2003b;Wagner & Scharf, 2006).…”