Loudness Adaptation Induced Interaurally and Monaurally

  • B. Scharf
  • M.-C. Botte
  • G. Canévet

Abstract

Loudness is unusually stable. Unlike most other sensations, it does not decline over time simply as the result of continued stimulation. The failure of loudness to adapt under most listening conditions poses an intriguing question. Just what keeps loudness from adapting? To help answer that question, we have investigated two of those conditions under which loudness does adapt, at levels below about 30 dB SL (Scharf, 1983) and in the presence of a contralateral intermittent sound (Botte et al., 1982). The present paper extends the latter investigation. First we review the phenomenon which we have called induced loudness adaptation and present new data on the effect of intermittency. Second we examine the reduction in the loudness of a continuous tone while a 10-s tone is present in the contralateral ear; particular attention is paid to frequency selectivity. Third we show that loudness adaptation can be induced by an intermittent tone in the same ear(s) as the continuous tone, whether the tones are presented through earphone(s) or from loudspeaker(s) in a free field.

Keywords

Fatigue Azimuth Dura Beating Tone 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Békésy, G. von (1958). Funneling in the nervous system. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 30, 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botte, M.-C., Canévet, G., Scharf, B. (1982). Loudness adaptation induced by an intermittent tone. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 77, 727–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botte, M.-C., Scharf, B. (1980). La sonie. Effets simultanes de fatigue et de masque. Acustica. 46, 99–106.Google Scholar
  4. Canévet, G., Scharf, B., Botte, M.-C. (1983). Loudness adaptation, when induced, is real. Brit. J. Audiol. 17 (January).Google Scholar
  5. Hood, J.D., Wade, P. (1982). Loudness adaptation: real or illusory. Brit. J. Audiol. 16, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Scharf, B. (1969). Dichotic summation of loudness. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 45, 1193–1205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Scharf, B. (1978). Loudness. In: Handbook of Perception, Eds. E.G. Carterette and M.P. Friedman, pp. 187–242, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Scharf, B. (1983). Loudness adaptation. In: Hearing Research and Theory, Vol. 2, Eds. J.V. Tobias Arid E.D. Schubert, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Scharf, B., Botte, M.-C., Canévet, G. (in press). Recuperation après adaptation induite de sonie. Année Psychologique.Google Scholar
  10. Scharf, B., Florentine, M., Meiselman, C.H. (1976). Critical band in auditory lateralization. Sensory Processes. 19 109–126.Google Scholar
  11. Stevens, S.S. (1956). The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes—loudness. Amer. J. Psychol. 69, 1–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Weiler, E.M., Sandman, D.E., Pederson, L.M. (1981). Magnitude estimates of loudness adaptation at 60 dB SPL. Brit. J. Audiol. 15, 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zwislocki, J.J., Damianopoulos, E.N., Buining, E., Glantz, J. (1967). Central masking: Some steady-state and transient effects. Percept. and Psychophys. 2, 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Scharf
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • M.-C. Botte
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • G. Canévet
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Auditory Perception LaboratoryNortheastern Univ.BostonUSA
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Psychologie ExpérimentaleCNRSParisFrance
  3. 3.Laboratoire de Mécanique et d’AcoustiqueCNRSMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations