Neurophysiological Evidence for the Stevens Power Function in Man

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 (BERI. 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.

Section: Data Reductionsupporting

confidence: 79%

mentioning

confidence: 80%

Power functions of loudness magnitude estimations and auditory brainstem evoked responses

Wilson

Stelmack

1982

“…This wave (latency, 100-170 msec) most likely corresponds to the prominant N1 component of the auditory vertex potential , which has been related to stimulus intensity (Rapin, Schimmel, Tourk, Krasnegor, & Pollak, 1966) and to psychophysical judgments of loudness (Keidel & Spreng, 1965;Davis & lerlin, 1966;Davis, Bowers, & Hirsh, 1968). Tanis (1972) has recently reported that the amplitude of the N1-P2 complex was correlated with psychophysical judgments in an auditory intensity discrimination task (4 vs 5.8 dB HL).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Vertex potentials evoked during auditory signal detection: Relation to decision criteria

Squires

Hillyard

Lindsay

1973

226

105

Vertex potentials were recorded from eight Ss performing in an auditory threshold detection task with rating scale responses. The amplitudes and latencies of both the N 1 and the late positive (P3) components were found to vary systematically with the criterion level of the decision. These changes in the waveshape of the N 1 component were comparable to those produced by varying the signal intensity in a passive condition, but the late positive component in the active task was not similarly related to the passively evoked P2 component It was suggested that the Nl and P3 components represent distinctive aspects of the decision process, with N 1 signifying the quantity of signal information received and P3 reflecting the certainty of the decision based upon that information.

“…It is now well established that the amplitude of the evoked brain response (EBR) is related to changes in auditory (Davis & Zerlin, 1966;Keidel & Spreng, 1965;Schweitzer, 1977;Tepas, Boxerman, & Anch, 1972) and visual (Dinges & Tepas, 1976;Kress, 1975;Shipley, Jones, Wayne, & Fry, 1966;Tepas, Guiteras, & Klingaman, 1974) stimulus intensity. Although these relationships are most frequently linear, their exact form is not clear.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evoked brain responses to auditory and visual stimuli of equal subjective magnitude

Walsh

1979

Evoked brain response (EBR) waveforms to auditory and visual stimuli of equal subjective magnitude were computed for three human observers. Amplitude-intensity functions for both modalities were described well by power functions. Power function exponents for auditory EBR functions were greater than for visual EBR functions. This finding corresponds with psychophysical data reported in the literature which indicate that loudness power functions grow faster than those for brightness. In addition, EBR waveforms computed to bimodal stimuli appear to be an algebraic summation of unimodal EBR waveforms. No sensory interaction is suggested by bimodal EBRs.It is now well established that the amplitude of the evoked brain response (EBR) is related to changes in auditory