Subject: Re: AUDITORY Digest - 28 Jun 2007 to 29 Jun 2007 (#2007-142) From: "Watson, Charles S." <watson@xxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:43:06 -0400 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>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@xxxxxxxx On Behalf Of AUDITORY automatic digest system Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:08 AM To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx> 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/ ------------------------------ >