Literature DB >> 9360862

The contour test of loudness perception.

R M Cox1, G C Alexander, I M Taylor, G A Gray.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This article presents the underlying rationale, normative data, and reliability data for a test of loudness perception (the Contour Test) that was devised for use in clinical hearing aid fitting. The Contour Test yields data describing the sound level required for each of seven categories of loudness ranging from very soft to uncomfortably loud.
DESIGN: Two experiments are described. Experiment 1 yielded norms for the test. The subjects were 23 male and 22 female normal-hearing listeners. Test stimuli included warble tones at six frequencies and broad band speech. Experiment 2 assessed the reliability of the test results. Ten hearing-impaired listeners responded to the test at two frequencies on two occasions separated by several days. Both experiments also evaluated the effect of using different stimulus increment sizes on the measured levels of loudness categories.
RESULTS: Based on the data from experiment 1, norms for each category of each stimulus are reported in terms of mean level and typical between-subject variation in responses. Data are provided in HA-12 cm3 coupler levels as well as in hearing levels (dB HL). The shape of the loudness growth function for warble tones was somewhat different from that for speech. When data were expressed in HL, there were no differences in mean loudness category levels across warble tone test frequencies. Thus, test frequencies were combined and equations were generated to describe the upper and lower limits of typical normal performance for warble tone stimuli. These equations can be used to construct a template for clinical comparison of normative values to patient loudness growth curves. Experiment 2 provided information about the test-retest variability of data yielded by the Contour Test. Reliability appears to be similar to that of the few other category scaling tests described in the literature. Most test-retest differences were 6 dB or less. Although a moderate variation in test increment size did not significantly affect the loudness category levels for young normal-hearing listeners, levels corresponding to loudness categories were significantly higher when larger increments were used with elderly hearing-impaired listeners.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this and other research indicates that standardized measurement of loudness perception is an achievable goal for clinical practice. The Contour Test appears to offer a viable approach to clinical measurement of loudness perception: It has good patient acceptance and combines fairly rapid administration with acceptable reliability. Details of test procedures and scoring sheets for manual administration can be downloaded from the Internet at www.ausp.memphis.edu/harl. However, it is important to keep in mind that the application of loudness perception data for narrowband stimuli (such as warble tones) to hearing aid prescription is complicated by the need to account for the effects of loudness summation across bandwidth. There is a need for additional research to establish an empirical link between clinically measured loudness perception and optimal amplification characteristics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9360862     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199710000-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  46 in total

1.  Reliability of categorical loudness scaling and its relation to threshold.

Authors:  Sarah C Al-Salim; Judy G Kopun; Stephen T Neely; Walt Jesteadt; Bettina Stiegemann; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Preference for one or two hearing AIDS among adult patients.

Authors:  Robyn M Cox; Kathryn S Schwartz; Colleen M Noe; Genevieve C Alexander
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality.

Authors:  Pamela E Souza
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2002-12

Review 4.  Relations among Auditory Brainstem and Middle Latency Response Measures, Categorical Loudness Judgments, and Their Associated Physical Intensities.

Authors:  Peggy A Korczak; LaGuinn P Sherlock; Monica L Hawley; Craig Formby
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2017-02

Review 5.  Repeated Measurement of Absolute and Relative Judgments of Loudness: Clinical Relevance for Prescriptive Fitting of Aided Target Gains for soft, Comfortable, and Loud, But Ok Sound Levels.

Authors:  Craig Formby; JoAnne Payne; Xin Yang; Delphanie Wu; Jason M Parton
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2017-02

Review 6.  Intra- and Intersubject Variability in Audiometric Measures and Loudness Judgments in Older Listeners with Normal Hearing.

Authors:  Monica L Hawley; LaGuinn P Sherlock; Craig Formby
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2017-02

7.  Influence of suppression on restoration of spectral loudness summation in listeners with hearing loss.

Authors:  Daniel M Rasetshwane; Robin R High; Judy G Kopun; Stephen T Neely; Michael P Gorga; Walt Jesteadt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Loudness Perception of Pure Tones in Parkinson's Disease.

Authors:  Defne Abur; Ashling A Lupiani; Ann E Hickox; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 9.  The Physiologic and Psychophysical Consequences of Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Eric Hoover
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

10.  Different patterns of perceptual learning on spectral modulation detection between older hearing-impaired and younger normal-hearing adults.

Authors:  Andrew T Sabin; Cynthia A Clark; David A Eddins; Beverly A Wright
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-12-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.