The relation between gap detection, loudness, and loudness growth in noise-masked normal-hearing listeners
- 1 February 1997
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Acoustical Society of America (ASA) in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Vol. 101 (2) , 1044-1049
- https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418110
Abstract
Gap detection was measured for 50 and 1000-Hz-wide noise markers arithmetically centered on 1000 Hz. The markers were presented in a lowpass background noise having a high-frequency cutoff of 2000 Hz. The pressure spectrum level of the background noise was either 0 or 40 dB/Hz. Gap detection was determined at sensation levels (SLs) of 10, 15, 20, and 30 dB in the 0-dB/Hz background, and at SLs of 10, 15, and 20 dB in the 40-dB/Hz background. Because loudness increased more steeply in the higher level noise background, the markers in the 40-dB/Hz background were at higher loudness (and at a steeper portion of the loudness growth function) than markers in the 0-dB/Hz background, for markers matched in terms of SL. The main goal of the experiment was to determine whether gap detection would be relatively poor at steep portions of the loudness growth function due to the gap being confused with ongoing random dips. Such confusion might be particularly great when the noise bandwidth was narrow (and therefore characterized by prominent fluctuation) and the growth of loudness was steep. Gap detection was poorer for the 50-Hz-wide marker than for the 1000-Hz-wide marker. For a given marker bandwidth at a given SL, gap detection was similar whether the marker was presented in the 0-dB/Hz noise or the 40-dB/Hz noise. Supplementary conditions indicated that (1) gap detection results for 50-Hz-wide markers presented at equal SL's were also similar between a 0-dB/Hz noise background and a 55-dB/Hz noise background, and that (2) gap detection for 50- and 1000-Hz-wide markers was poorer in a 40-dB/Hz background than in a 0-dB/Hz background when markers were matched for loudness. The results generally indicated similar gap detection thresholds for markers presented at similar SLs across a relatively wide range of background noise levels. Gap detection was related more closely to the marker-to-noise ratio than to the loudness relation between markers or the steepness of loudness growth.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Loudness growth in 1/2-octave bands (LGOB)—A procedure for the assessment of loudnessThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1990
- Gap detection as a function of stimulus bandwidth with fixed high-frequency cutoff in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listenersThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1989
- Gap detection with sinusoids and noise in normal, impaired, and electrically stimulated earsThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1988
- Gap detection and masking in hearing-impaired and normal-hearing subjectsThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1987
- On the loudness of complex stimuli and its relationship to cochlear excitationThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1985
- Temporal gap resolution in masked normal ears as a function of masker levelThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1984
- Temporal gap detection in noise as a function of frequency, bandwidth, and levelThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1983
- Gap detection in normal and hearing-impaired listenersThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1982
- Loudness Function of a 1000-cps Tone in the Presence of a Masking NoiseThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1964
- Loudness Function in the Presence of Masking NoiseThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1964