No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
An introduction to induced loudness reduction
1.Arieh, Y. , Kelly, K. , and Marks, L. E. (2005). “Tracking the time to recovery after induced loudness reduction (L),” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 3381–3384.
2.Arieh, Y. , and Marks, L. E. (2001). “Recalibration of loudness: Sensory vs. decisional processes,” in Fechner Day 2001, edited by E. Sommerfeld, R. Kompass, and T. Lachmann (Pabst, Berlin).
3.Arieh, Y. , and Marks, L. E. (2003). “Time course of loudness recalibration: Implications for loudness enhancement,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 1550–1556.
4.Braida, L. D. , and Durlach, N. I. (1972). “Intensity perception. II. Resolution in one-interval paradigms,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 51, 483–502.
5.Buus, S. , Florentine, M. , Poulsen, T. , and Müsch, H. (1999). “On the relation between peripheral compression and the growth of loudness,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 1022.
6.Epstein, M. , and Florentine, M. (2005). “A test of the equal-loudness-ratio hypothesis using cross-modality matching functions,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 907–913.
7.Epstein, M. , and Gifford, E. (2006). “A potential carry-over effect in the measurement of induced loudness reduction,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 305–309.
8.Florentine, M. , and Epstein, M. (2006). “To honor Stevens and repeal his law (for the auditory system),” in Fechner Day, edited by D. E. Kornbrot, R. M. Msetfi, and A. W. MacRae (International Society for Psychophysics, St. Albans, UK).
9.Hellman, R. P. , and Zwislocki, J. J. (1963). “Monaural loudness function at and interaural summation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 35, 856–865.
10.Mapes-Riordan, D. , and Yost, W. A. (1997). “Loudness recalibration as a function of recalibration and comparison tone level,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 3170.
11.Mapes-Riordan, D. , and Yost, W. A. (1998). “Temporal properties of loudness recalibration,” Proc. 16th International Congress on Acoustics, Seattle, WA, pp. 2361–2362.
12.Mapes-Riordan, D. , and Yost, W. A. (1999). “Loudness recalibration as a function of level,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 3506–3511.
13.Marks, L. E. (1992). “The slippery context effect in psychophysics: Intensive, extensive, and qualitative continua,” Percept. Psychophys. 51, 187–198.
16.Marozeau, J. , Epstein, M. , Florentine, M. , and Ioffe, S. (2006). “Loudness reduction caused by a tone at a different frequency,” American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), Miami, FL.
17.Moore, B. C. , and Glasberg, B. R. (1987). “Formulae describing frequency selectivity as a function of frequency and level, and their use in calculating excitation patterns,” Hear. Res. 28, 209–225.
18.Nieder, B. , Buus, S. , Cazals, Y. , and Scharf, B. (2007). “Loudness reduction induced by a contralateral tone,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 35–37.
19.Nieder, B. , Buus, S. , Florentine, M. , and Scharf, B. (2003). “Interactions between test- and inducer-tone durations in induced loudness reduction,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 2846–2855.
20.Oberfeld, D. (2007). “Loudness changes induced by a proximal sound: Loudness enhancement, loudness recalibration, or both?,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121, 2137–2148.
21.Parker, S. , and Schneider, B. (1994). “The stimulus range effect: Evidence for top-down control of sensory intensity in audition,” Percept. Psychophys. 56, 1–11.
22.Scharf, B. , Buus, S. , and Nieder, B. (2002). “Loudness enhancement: Induced loudness reduction in disguise? (L),” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112, 807–810.
23.Schneider, B. , and Parker, S. (1990). “Does stimulus context affect loudness or only loudness judgments,” Percept. Psychophys. 48, 409–418.
24.Silva, I. , and Florentine, M. (2006). “Effect of adaptive psychophysical procedure on loudness matches,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 2124–2131.
26.Wagner, E. , and Scharf, B. (2006). “Induced loudness reduction as a function of exposure time and signal frequency,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119, 1012–1020.
27.Ward, L. M. , Armstrong, J. , and Golestani, N. (1996). “Intensity resolution and subjective magnitude in psychophysical scaling,” Percept. Psychophys. 58, 793–801.
28.Zwicker, E. , and Fastl, H. (1990). Psychoacoustics—Facts and Models (Springer, Berlin).
Article metrics loading...
Induced loudness reduction (ILR) is a phenomenon by which a preceding higher-level tone (an inducer tone) reduces the loudness of a lower-level tone (a test tone). The strength of this effect depends on a number of parameters, reviewed here. Some of the implications of ILR on loudness data are presented via the analysis of several studies in which ILR likely resulted in otherwise unexplained biases in data sets. These results serve as examples of the pervasiveness of ILR in loudnessmeasurements and indicate that it is necessary to consider ILR when designing any psychoacousticalexperiment in which level varies.
Full text loading...
Most read this month