Turner C W, Horwitz A R, Souza P E
Institute for Sensory Research, Syracuse University, New York 13244-2280.
J Acoust Soc Am. 1994 Oct;96(4):2121-6. doi: 10.1121/1.410153.
A "midlevel" hump in the intensity jnd has been reported for pure tones preceded [e.g., Zeng et al., Hear. Res. 55, 223-230 (1991)] or followed [Plack and Viemeister, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92, 3097-3101 (1992)] by an intense masker where the signal-masker interval was 100 ms. These previous studies used forced-choice procedures, in which subjects were required to indicate the more intense tone. Plack and Viemeister [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92, 3097-3101 (1992)] have proposed that the task of judging the intensity of the short probe tone, when it is presented along with an intense masker, may lead to cognitive or central factors influencing the results. The present experiments attempted to reduce these possible effects by measuring intensity jnd's using two additional paradigms. First, a "multiple-look" forced-choice method, in which subjects listened to the stimulus pairs several times before responding, was used to obtain only forward-masked intensity jnd's. Second, the method of adjustment was used to obtain both forward- and backward-masked intensity jnd's. Both the standard forced-choice method and the multiple-look forced-choice method yielded jnd data with a midlevel hump, when compared to jnd's measured without a masker. In contrast, jnd's obtained with the method of adjustment yielded jnd data with no midlevel hump. The present results suggest that the traditional method of adjustment for intensity discrimination, where subjects adjust the signal level to a point of subjective equality, may measure a fundamentally different quantity than that measured by forced-choice procedures.
据报道,对于之前[例如,曾等人,《听觉研究》55,223 - 230(1991)]或之后[普拉克和维梅斯特,《美国声学学会杂志》92,3097 - 3101(1992)]伴有强度为100毫秒的强掩蔽音的纯音,强度辨别阈(jnd)中存在一个“中等水平”的峰值。这些先前的研究使用了强制选择程序,要求受试者指出更强的音调。普拉克和维梅斯特[《美国声学学会杂志》92,3097 - 3101(1992)]提出,当短探测音与强掩蔽音一起呈现时,判断其强度的任务可能会导致认知或中枢因素影响结果。本实验试图通过使用另外两种范式测量强度辨别阈来减少这些可能的影响。首先,采用“多次观察”强制选择方法,即受试者在做出反应前多次聆听刺激对,仅用于获得前掩蔽强度辨别阈。其次,采用调整法来获得前掩蔽和后掩蔽强度辨别阈。与无掩蔽音时测量的辨别阈相比,标准强制选择法和多次观察强制选择法都产生了具有中等水平峰值的辨别阈数据。相比之下,用调整法获得的辨别阈数据没有中等水平的峰值。目前的结果表明,传统的强度辨别调整法,即受试者将信号水平调整到主观相等点,可能测量的是与强制选择程序测量的量根本不同的量。