Epstein Michael, Florentine Mary
Institute for Hearing, Speech, and Language and Communications and Digital Signal Processing Center, ECE Department (440 DA), Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Apr;119(4):1943-5. doi: 10.1121/1.2177592.
McFadden [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 57, 702-704 (1975)] questioned the accuracy and reliability of magnitude estimation for measuring loudness of tones that vary both in duration and level, whereas Stevens and Hall [Percept. Psychophys. 1, 319-327 (1966)] reported reasonable group data. To gain insight into this discrepancy, the present study compares loudness measures for 5- and 200-ms tones using magnitude estimation and equal-loudness matches from the same listeners. Results indicate that both procedures provide rapid and accurate assessments of group loudness functions for brief tones, but may not be reliable enough to reveal specific characteristics of loudness in individual listeners.
麦克法登[《美国声学学会杂志》57, 702 - 704 (1975)]对用于测量时长和强度均变化的纯音响度的量级估计的准确性和可靠性提出了质疑,而史蒂文斯和霍尔[《感知与心理物理学》1, 319 - 327 (1966)]报告了合理的群体数据。为了深入了解这种差异,本研究比较了使用同一听众的量级估计和等响度匹配对5毫秒和200毫秒纯音的响度测量结果。结果表明,这两种方法都能快速且准确地评估短纯音的群体响度函数,但可能不够可靠,无法揭示个体听众响度的具体特征。