Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Technical Audiology, Linköping University, 58185 Linköping, Sweden.
Hear Res. 2013 Jul;301:85-92. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.03.010. Epub 2013 Apr 3.
In a previous study (Stenfelt and Håkansson, 2002) a loudness balance test between bone conducted (BC) sound and air conducted (AC) sound was performed at frequencies between 0.25 and 4 kHz and at levels corresponding to 30-80 dB HL. The main outcome of that study was that for maintaining equal loudness, the level increase of sound with BC stimulation was less than that of AC stimulation with a ratio between 0.8 and 0.93 dB/dB. However, because it was shown that AC and BC tone cancellation was independent of the stimulation level, the loudness level difference did not originate in differences in basilar membrane stimulation. Therefore, it was speculated that the result could be due to the loudness estimation procedure. To investigate this further, another loudness estimation method (adaptive categorical loudness scaling) was here employed in 20 normal-hearing subjects. The loudness of a low-frequency and a high-frequency noise burst was estimated using the adaptive categorical loudness scaling technique when the stimulation was bilaterally by AC or BC. The sounds where rated on an 11-point scale between inaudible and too loud. The total dynamic range for these sounds was over 80 dB when presented by AC (between inaudible and too loud) and the loudness functions were similar for the low and the high-frequency stimulation. When the stimulation was by BC the loudness functions were steeper and the ratios between the slopes of the AC and BC loudness functions were 0.88 for the low-frequency sound and 0.92 for the high-frequency sound. These results were almost equal to the previous published results using the equal loudness estimation procedure, and it was unlikely that the outcome stems from the loudness estimation procedure itself. One possible mechanism for the result was loudness integration of multi-sensory input. However, no conclusive evidence for such a mechanism could be given by the present study. This article is part of a special issue entitled "MEMRO 2012".
在之前的研究中(Stenfelt 和 Håkansson,2002),在 0.25 到 4 kHz 的频率范围内,对骨导(BC)声音和空气导(AC)声音进行了响度平衡测试,测试水平对应于 30-80 dB HL。该研究的主要结果是,为了保持响度相等,BC 刺激的声音电平增加小于 AC 刺激的声音电平增加,比例为 0.8 到 0.93 dB/dB。然而,由于已经表明 AC 和 BC 音调抵消与刺激水平无关,因此响度水平差异并非源于基底膜刺激的差异。因此,有人推测结果可能是由于响度估计程序。为了进一步研究这个问题,在 20 名正常听力受试者中采用了另一种响度估计方法(自适应类别响度标度)。当双侧采用 AC 或 BC 刺激时,使用自适应类别响度标度技术对低频和高频噪声突发的响度进行估计。声音在 11 点刻度上进行评分,范围从听不见到太大声。当通过 AC 呈现时,这些声音的总动态范围超过 80 dB(从听不见到太大声),并且低频和高频刺激的响度函数相似。当刺激通过 BC 时,响度函数更陡峭,AC 和 BC 响度函数斜率之间的比值分别为低频声音的 0.88 和高频声音的 0.92。这些结果与之前使用等响度估计程序的研究结果几乎相同,结果不太可能源自响度估计程序本身。结果的一种可能机制是多感觉输入的响度整合。然而,本研究无法为该机制提供确凿的证据。本文是特刊“MEMRO 2012”的一部分。