To identify whether equal-appearing interval or magnitude estimation scaling resulted in a data set with a closer correlation to the physical stimuli involved 20 young adults completing two tasks. In Task 1 subjects used a 7-point equal-appearing interval loudness of 18 10-sec. samples of babble speech, presented randomly at intensities of 5 to 90 dB SPL. In Task 2 subjects used magnitude estimation scaling to rate these stimuli, presented in a randomized order. Analysis showed significantly high correlations for both scaling methods and the stimuli (Spearman rho= 1.00 and .99, respectively). Subjects can use either form of scaling to rate changes in loudness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE. (1996) American National Standards: Specifications for audiometers (ANSI S3 6–1996). New York: ANSI.
2.
BanksM.FucciD.PetrosinoL.LeachE.ChristopherD. (1994) The effect of personality on magnitude estimation scaling of complex auditory stimuli. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 435–442.
3.
DoyleJ. (1987) Reliability of audiologists' ratings of the intelligibility of hearing impaired children's speech. Ear and Hearing, 8, 170–174.
4.
FucciD.BettagereR.GonzalesD.ReynoldsM.PetrosinoL. (1995) Language familiarity in magnitude estimation scaling of loudness by young adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80,419–423.
5.
FucciD.HarrisD.PetrosinoL.BanksM. (1993) Effect of preference for rock music on magnitude estimation scaling behavior in young adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 1171–1176.
6.
FucciD.McCollD.BondZ.StockmalV. (1997) Magnitude estimation scaling of complex auditory stimuli: Native and nonnative languages. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1468–1470.
7.
FucciD.PetrosinoL.McCollD.WyattD.WilcoxC. (1997) Magnitude estimation scaling of the loudness of a wide range of auditory stimuli. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1059–1066.
HellmanR.ZwtslockiJ. (1963) Monaural loudness function at 1000 cps in interaural summation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 36, 856–865.
10.
HellmanR.ZwislockiJ. (1964) Loudness of a 1000 cps tone in the presence of a masking noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 36, 1618–1627.
11.
KalikowD. N.StevensK. N.ElliottL. L. (1977) Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of trie Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1337–1351.
12.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978) Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
PoultonE. C. (1968) The new psychophysics: Six models for magnitude estimation. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 1–19.
14.
PoultonE. C. (1979) Models for biases in judging sensory magnitude. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 777–803.
15.
PratherE. M. (1960) Scaling defectiveness of articulation by direct magnitude estimation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 3, 380–392.
16.
StevensS. S. (1971) Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review, 78, 426–450.
17.
StevensS. S. (1974) Perceptual magnitude and its measurement. In CarteretteE. C.FriedmanM. P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception. London: Academic Press. Pp. 361–387.
18.
ZwislockiJ.GoodmanD. (1980) Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: A validation. Perception & Psychophysics, 86, 28–38.
