Twenty-four respondents continuously rated the loudness of the first 65 seconds of a Dvořák Slavonic Dance, which was known to vary considerably in loudness. They also rated the same excerpt when the sound file was digitally treated so that (1) the sound pressure level (SPL) was inverted or (2) it was temporally reversed or (3) both 1 and 2. Specifically we wanted to see if acoustic intensity was processed into the percept of loudness primarily using a bottom-up (indifferent to timbral environment and thematic cues) or top-down style (where musical context, such as instrument identity and musical expectation affects the loudness rating). Comparing the different versions (conditions) allowed us to ascertain which style they were likely to be using. A single, six-second region was located as being differentiated across two conditions, where loudness seemed to be increased due to expectation of the instrument and orchestral texture, despite the lower SPL. We named this effect an auditory loudness stroop. A second region was differentiated between the two conditions, but its explanation appears to involve two factors, auditory looming perception and the reversal of stimulus note ramps. The overall conclusion was that the predominant processing style for loudness rating was bottom-up. Implications for further research and application to models of loudness are discussed.
AtkinsonR.ShiffrinR. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 2, 89–195.
2.
CanévetG.ScharfB. (1990). The loudness of sounds that increase and decrease continuously in level. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 88, 2136.
3.
ChalupperJ.FastlH. (2002). Dynamic Loudness Model (DLM) for normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 88, 378–386.
4.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
6.
DeanR. T.BailesF. (2010a). Time-series analysis as a method to examine acoustical influences on real-time perception of music. Empirical Musicology Review, 5(4), 152–175.
7.
DeanR. T.BailesF. (2010b). A rise–fall temporal asymmetry of intensity in composed and improvized electroacoustic music. Organized Sound, 15(2), 147–158.
8.
DeanR. T.BailesF.SchubertE. (2011). Acoustic intensity causes perceived changes in arousal levels in music: An experimental investigation. PLoS ONE, 6(4), e18591. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.001859110.1371/journal.pone.0018591.
9.
DiGiovanniJ. J.SchlauchR. S. (2007). Mechanisms responsible for differences in perceived duration for rising-intensity and falling-intensity sounds. Ecological Psychology, 19(3), 239–264.
10.
FastlH. (1991). Evaluation and measurement of perceived average loudness. In SchickA.HellbrückJ.WeberR. (Eds.), Contributions to psychological acoustics, vol. 5 (pp. 205–216): Oldenburg: Bibliotheksund Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg (BIS).
11.
FergusonS.SchubertE.CabreraD. (2010). Comparing continuous subjective loudness responses and computational models of loudness for temporally varying sounds. Paper presented at the 129th Audio Engineering Society Convention, San Francisco, USA, 4–7 November. Retrieved from www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15600 (last accessed 26 May 2011).
12.
FoxJ. (1997). Applied regression analysis, linear models, and related methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
GlasbergB. R.MooreB. C. J. (2002). A model of loudness applicable to time-varying sounds. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 50(5), 331–342.
14.
HellbrückJ.FastlH.KellerB. (2004). Does meaning of sound influence loudness judgements?Proceedings of the International Congress on Acoustics, Kyoto, Japan, 4–9 April, 1097–1100.
15.
HuronD. (1990). Crescendo Diminuendo Asymmetries in Beethoven Piano Sonatas. Music Perception, 7(4), 395–402.
16.
KuwanoS.NambaS. (1985). Continuous judgement of level-fluctuating sounds and the relationship between overall loudness and instantaneous loudness. Psychological Research, 47(1), 27–37.
17.
MenzelD.FastlH.GrafR.HellbrückJ. (2008). Influence of vehicle color on loudness judgments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(5), 2477–2479.
18.
MacLeodC. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203.
19.
NambaS.KuwanoS.FastlH. (1988). Loudness of road traffic noise using the method of continuous judgment by category. In BerglundB.BerglundU.KarlssonJ.LindvallT. (Eds.), Noise as a Public Health Problem. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Council for Building Research, 241–246.
20.
NeuhoffJ. G. (1998). Perceptual bias for rising tones. Nature, 395(6698), 123–124.
21.
NeuhoffJ. G. (1999). Perception of changes in loudness. Nature (Letter to the Editor), 398(April), 673–674.
22.
OlsenK. N.StevensC. J. (2010). Perceptual overestimation of rising intensity: Is stimulus continuity necessary?Perception, 39(5), 695–704.
23.
RenniesJ.VerheyJ. L.FastlH. (2010). Comparison of loudness models for time-varying sounds. Acta Acustic United with Acustica, 96, 383–396.
24.
SchlauchR. S. (2004). Loudness. In NeuhoffJ. (Ed.), Ecological Psychoacoustics (pp. 317–345). Boston: Elsevier Academic Press.
25.
SchubertE. (2007). Real time cognitive response recording. In SchubertE.BuckleyK.EliottR.KoboroffB.ChenJ.StevensC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Inaugural International Conference on Music Communication Science (pp. 139–142). Sydney, Australia: ARC Research Network in Human Communication Science (HCSNet), University of Western Sydney.
26.
SchubertE. (2002). Correlation analysis of continuous emotional response to music: Correcting for the effects of serial correlation. Musicae Scientiaespecial issue, 2001–2002, 213–236.
27.
SchubertE. (2004). Modelling perceived emotion with continuous musical features. Music Perception, 21(4), 561–585.
28.
SchubertE. (2010). Continuous self-report methods. In JuslinP. N.SlobodaJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications (pp. 223–253). Oxford: OUP.
29.
SoulodreG.LavoieM. C. (2006). Development and evaluation of short-term loudness meters. Paper presented at the 121st Audio Engineering Society Convention, San Francisco, USA, 5–8 October.
30.
SteckerG. C.HafterE. R. (2000). An effect of temporal asymmetry on loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(6), 3358–3368.
31.
StevensS. S. (1955). The measurement of loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27(5), 815–829.
32.
StevensonS.CampbellM.BromageS.ChickJ.GilbertJ. (2009). Motion of the lips of brass players during extremely loud playing. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 125(4), EL152–157.
33.
TeghtsoonianR.TeghtsoonianM.CanévetG. (2000). The perception of waning signals: Decruitment in loudness and perceived size. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(3), 637–646.
34.
TeghtsoonianR.TeghtsoonianM.CanévetG. (2005). Sweep-induced acceleration in loudness change and the “bias for rising intensities”. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(4), 699–712.
35.
WeberR. (1992). The continuous loudness judgement of temporally variable sounds with an “analog” category procedure. In SchickA.HellbrückJ.WeberR. (Eds.), Contributions to Psychological Acoustics (pp. 267–294). Oldenburg: BIS.
