2005
DOI: 10.1121/1.1898103
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tracking the time to recovery after induced loudness reduction (L)

Abstract: In induced loudness reduction ͑ILR͒, a strong tone causes the loudness of a subsequently presented weak tone to decrease. The aim of the experiment was to determine the time required for loudness to return to its initial level after ILR. Twenty-four subjects were exposed to 5, 10, 20, or 40 brief bursts of 2500-Hz pure tones at 80-dB SPL ͑inducers͒ and then tested in a series of paired comparison trials. Subjects compared the loudness of a weak target ͑2500 Hz at 60-dB SPL͒ to the loudness of a comparison tone… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, Scharf et al (2003) used an adaptive procedure in which the inducer tones were presented on every trial, whereas in this study, a series of inducers was presented every 15 trials. Coupled with the fact that ILR tends to accumulate over repeated presentations (Arieh et al, 2005), this difference may have led to a greater effect on loudness than on lateralization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For example, Scharf et al (2003) used an adaptive procedure in which the inducer tones were presented on every trial, whereas in this study, a series of inducers was presented every 15 trials. Coupled with the fact that ILR tends to accumulate over repeated presentations (Arieh et al, 2005), this difference may have led to a greater effect on loudness than on lateralization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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). This time course is similar to processes of peripheral sensory adaptation in other modalities-such as, in vision, processes of rapid light adaptation but slower dark adaptation (e.g., Mahroo & Lamb, 2004).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each of these filters has a band-pass form similar to the visual and gustatory temporal modulation transfer function, which can be described equivalently as a sum of tonic and phasic mechanisms ( Figure 9B); hence, a sum of phasic and tonic processes is sufficiently powerful to explain the experimental results and proposed underlying mechanisms. Other adaptive phenomena, such as induced loudness reduction and loudness recalibration, timedependent changes in loudness perception after exposure to a strong tone (Arieh, Kelly, & Marks, 2005;Arieh & Marks, 2003), may represent interactions between tonic and phasic response properties of filters representing processing in adjacent octave-centered cochlear regions.…”
Section: Fit Of the Model To Existing Psychophysical Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Notably, it has been shown that the amount of ILR is greater at moderate levels (Mapes-Riordan & Yost, 1999). Because the effects of ILR accumulate over time, results obtained in the early portions of experiments, prior to significant sound exposure, may differ markedly from results obtained in later portions of experiments (Arieh, Kelly, & Marks, 2005). Epstein (2007) examined the results of a magnitude estimation study by Hellman and Zwislocki (1963).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is, however, difficult to model the effects of ILR on a particular experiment, because of the dependence on several factors (see Epstein, 2007, for a review), including (1) tone levels (Mapes-Riordan & Yost, 1999), (2) frequency separation between inducer and test tones (Marks, 1994), (3) durations of inducer and test tones (Nieder, Buus, Florentine, & Scharf, 2003), (4) time separation between inducer and test tones (Arieh & Marks, 2003), (5) number of exposures to inducers (Arieh et al, 2005), and (6) individual differences (Epstein & Gifford, 2006;Wagner & Scharf, 2006).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%