[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AUDITORY Digest - 28 Jun 2007 to 29 Jun 2007 (#2007-142)
Auditory list,
Large-n experiments are mostly found in the clinical literature,
beginning back with the studies that were the source of the earliest
audiometric zero, for example the one done at the Wisconsin State Fair.
More recent studies have often used clinical populations, such as
children with language difficulties or adult hearing-aid users, to
determine the distribution of various auditory abilities in those
populations, generally in comparison with matched unaffected controls.
However there have been a smaller number of efforts to determine the
distribution of sensitivity and acuity (spectral and temporal) in the
population of adult listeners with normal audiograms. In the paper
below by Johnson et al we reviewed a number of these, going back to the
1940's. Surprenant and I published a test-battery study with 130 or so
listeners and this work is extended in an in-press JASA paper by Kidd,
Gygi and myself, by a study with 340 listeners (19 auditory tasks). The
most recent study included measures of the recognition of speech and of
familiar environmental sounds. A recurring theme over the past 60 years
is that individual differences in speech recognition are not predicted
by [reliable measures of] differences in spectral-temporal acuity
measured with various psychoacoustic tasks. An addition to this old
news, in the most recent work, is that individual differences in the
ability to identify speech stimuli seem to be correlated with the
ability to recognize other familiar sounds. In other words, it appears
that differences in top-down processing account for more variance in
familiar sound recognition than do differences in spectral-temporal
acuity...in the general population. And, in case one wonders, these
difference in recognition abilities are not strongly related to general
intelligence.
Forgive the "commercial message" but the modest number of responses to
questions about large-n studies provoked it.
Chuck Watson
Johnson, D. M., Watson, C. S. and Jensen, J.K. (1987) Individual
differences in auditory capabilities. I. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,
81, 427-38.
Surprenant, A. M. and Watson, C.S. (2001) Individual differences in the
processing of speech and nonspeech sounds by normal-hearing listeners.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 110, 2085-95.
-----Original Message-----
From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception
[mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of AUDITORY automatic digest
system
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:08 AM
To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AUDITORY Digest - 28 Jun 2007 to 29 Jun 2007 (#2007-142)
There are 9 messages totalling 425 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Experiments with large N
2. Ba-da-ga without the Da response category (2)
3. Online listening tests and psychoacoutics experiments with large N
(2)
4. Psychoacoutics experiments with large N
5. Call for Participation: ICA 2007 - Intl. Conf. on Independent
Component
Analysis and Signal Separation
6. Help with alignment tool for speech database
7. Research in Portugal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:32:28 +0200
From: Massimo Grassi <massimo.grassi@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Experiments with large N
> Which one of Hartmann's 1993 JASA papers are you refering to?
> One of them has 6 listeners and other (Hartmann and Rakerd) has 11
> listener data. So please specify what you mean by "very large" N.
I was thinking large, and I had no bias for a specific N. Hartmann run
experiment-like demos in a classroom (N=99). Neuhoff et al. (2002) also
did experiment in a classroom (N ~=200).
Here is the Hartmann's reference:
Hartmann, (1993). Auditory demonstrations on compact-disk for large N.
JASA 93, 1-16.
So far it looks that the experiment with the largest N (513!) is "The
role of contrasting temporal amplitude patterns in the perception of
speech" Healy and Warren JASA but I didn't check yet the methodology to
see whether is a between or a within subject design.
m
--
Massimo Grassi - PhD
Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale
Via Venezia 8 - 35131 Padova - Italy
http://www.psy.unipd.it/~grassi
http://percezione.wordpress.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:53:55 +0100
From: Alastair Moore <ahm105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Psychoacoutics experiments with large N
Mershon and King used 160 subjects (80 for each condition) - "Intensity
and reverberation as factors in the auditory perception of egocentric
distance", Perception and Psychophysics (1975), Vol 18
In a related experiment but I think using different subjects, Mershon
and Bowers used 200 subjects (100 for each condition) "Absolute and
relative cues for the auditory perception of egocentric distance",
Perception (1979), Vol 18
Hope this helps,
Alastair Moore
--
Research Student
Intelligent Systems Group | Audio Lab
Electronics Department
University of York
On 27 Jun 2007, at 07:51, Massimo Grassi wrote:
> Dear list members,
>
> is anybody aware of hearing experiments conducted with a (very) large
> number of participants?
>
> I know of only two works (i.e., W. Hartmann, JASA, 1993 and Neuhoff,
> Wayand and Knight, ICAD Proceedings, 2002).
>
>
> Thank you all in advance,
> m
>
> --
> Massimo Grassi - PhD
> Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale
> Via Venezia 8 - 35131 Padova - Italy
> http://www.psy.unipd.it/~grassi
> http://percezione.wordpress.com/
------------------------------
>