Advertisement

3.1 Definition and Consistency with Ratio Scaling

According to the Law of Additivity, sensation magnitudes and other subjective magnitudes sum linearly when processed independently up to the stage of summation. The law may be regarded as established for most same-modality sensation magnitudes but not heteromodality ones. Because it may be applied to the generation of functions that relate subjective magnitudes to their underlying stimulus magnitudes, it is often used for proving the Power Law, as is done in Chap. 1. The procedure consists preferentially of presenting two subjectively equal magnitudes and assigning to their sum a numeral that indicates magnitude doubling. For example, if the numeral 1 is assigned to the component magnitudes, the numeral 2 would be assigned to their sum.

The concept of additivity of subjective magnitudes was introduced at least as early as 1920s by communication engineers for the purpose of determining the growth of loudness as a function of tone...

Keywords

Magnitude Estimation Sound Frequency Tone Burst Pacinian Corpuscle Sensation Magnitude 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barlow, R.B. and Verrillo, R.T. (1976). Brightness sensation in a ganzfeld. Vision Research, 16; 1291–1297.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartoshuk, L.M. and Cleveland, C.T. (1977). Mixtures of substances with similar tastes: A test of a physiological model of taste mixture interactions. Sensory Processes, 1; 177–186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolanowski, S.J. (1987). Contourless stimuli produce binocular brightness summation. Vision Research, 27(11); 1943–1951.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolanowski, S.J., Checkowsky, C.M., and Wegenack, T.M. (1993). And now, for our two senses. In: Sensory Research: Multimodal Perspectives. R.T. Verrillo (Ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 211–231.Google Scholar
  5. Burglund, B. and Olsson, M.J. (1993). Odor-intensity interaction in binary and ternary mixtures. Perception & Psychophysics, 53(5); 475–482.Google Scholar
  6. Cain, W.S. (1977). Bilateral interaction in olfaction. Nature, 268; 50–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Caussé, R. and Chavasse, P. (1942). Différence entre l’écoute binauriculaire et monauriculaire pour la perception des intensitiés supraliminaire. Comptes Rendus de la Societe de Biologie, 136; 405–406.Google Scholar
  8. Fletcher, H. (1929). Speech and Hearing. D. Van Nostrand Co., New York.Google Scholar
  9. Fletcher, H. (1935). Newer concepts of the pitch, the loudness and the timbre of musical tones. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 220; 405–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fletcher, H. and Munson, W.A. (1933). Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 5; 82–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hellman, R.P. and Zwislocki, J.J. (1961). Some factors affecting the estimation of loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33; 687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hellman, R.P. and Zwislocki, J.J. (1963). Monaural loudness function at 1000 cps ans interaural summation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35(6); 856–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hellman, R.P. and Zwislocki, J.J. (1968). Loudness determination at low sound frequencies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 43(1); 60–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Levelt, W.J.M., Riemersma, J.B., and Bunt, A.A. (1972). Binaural additivity of loudness. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 25; 51–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Luce, R.D. and Tukey, J.W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1; 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marks, L.E. (1978). Binaural summation of the loudness of pure tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64(1); 107–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Marks, L.E. (1979). Summation of vibrotactile intensity: An analog to auditory critical bands? Sensory Processes, 3; 188–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Marks, L.E., Algom, D., and Benoit, J.-P. (1991). Dichotic summation of loudness with small frequency separations. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29(1); 62–64.Google Scholar
  19. Moskowitz, H.R. (1973). Models of sweetness additivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99(1); 88–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Scharf, B. and Fishkin, D. (1970). Binaural summation of loudness reconsidered. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86; 374–379.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Shaw, W.A., Newman, E.B., and Hirsh, I.J. (1947). The difference between monaural and binaural thresholds. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37; 229–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Stevens, S.S. and Davis, H. (1938). Hearing, It’s Psychology and Physiology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  23. Verrillo, R.T. (1968). A duplex mechanism of mechanoreception. In: The Skin Senses. D.R. Kenshalo (Ed.), C.C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, pp. 139–159.Google Scholar
  24. Verrillo, R.T. and Gesheider, G.A. (1975). Enhancement and summation in the perception of two successive vibrotactile stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 18; 128–136.Google Scholar
  25. Zwicker, E., Flottorp, G., and Stevens, S.S. (1957). Critical bandwidth in loudness summation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29; 548–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zwislocki, J.J. (1983). Group and individual relations between sensation magnitudes and their numerical estimates. Perception & Psychophysics, 33; 460–468.Google Scholar
  27. Zwislocki, J.J., Ketkar, I., Cannon, M.W., and Nodar, R.H. (1974). Loudness enhancement and summation in pairs or short sound bursts. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1); 91–95.Google Scholar
  28. Zwislocki, J.J. and Sokolich, W.G. (1974). On loudness enhancement of a tone burst by a preceding tone burst. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1); 87–90.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2009

Personalised recommendations