[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AUDITORY Digest - 15 Aug 2001 to 16 Aug 2001 (#2001-159)
Sheila,
The error of measurement of thresholds for pure tones in a continuous masker
is fairly large
compared to the individual differences among the listeners, for
psychophysical methods we have examined. Obviously if you continued testing
forever that would likely not be true. But for normal numbers of trials,
the error of measurement, estimated from test--retest reliability, is in the
range of 1-2 dB, and the range of individual differences in the thresholds
of listeners with clinically normal hearing is not much greater than that.
As a consequence, not only is the correlation low between test and retest,
but so is the correlation with other measures...such as the quiet threshold
that you are asking about.
This may not be the case if you obtained the masked thresholds with very low
levels of the masker; I am only talking about masker levels that are high
enough to yield at least 15 dB+ of masking for all listeners. We showed
some of the correlation with other measures in:
Johnson, D. M., Watson, C. S. and Jensen, J.K. (1987) Individual differences
in auditory capabilities. I. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 81, 427-38.
Hope this is of some use...
Chuck Watson
PS This answer is entirely addressed to the question of pure tones
presented in a continuous masker. If you are interested in temporal masking
phenomena, simply ignore it.
That is a very different bag of worms.
csw
-----Original Message-----
From: Automatic digest processor [mailto:LISTSERV@LISTS.MCGILL.CA]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 11:00 PM
To: Recipients of AUDITORY digests
Subject: AUDITORY Digest - 15 Aug 2001 to 16 Aug 2001 (#2001-159)
There are 4 messages totalling 130 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. threshold/masking data (2)
2. Annoyance of cell phone use in public spaces (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:55:04 +0100
From: Sheila M Williams <sheila.williams@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: threshold/masking data
Hi,
does anybody out there have any pure-tone threshold and simultaneous
masking data for normal hearing listeners aged from 13 to 40 or
thereabouts. We're interested in how closely these two scores correlate if
at all.
Sheila
Sheila Williams Tel 020 7679 5399
Psychology Department Fax 020 7436 4276
University College London
26 Bedford Way
London WC1H 0AP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:25:11 +0100
From: "OMard, Lowel P" <lowel@ESSEX.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Annoyance of cell phone use in public spaces
Hi People,
Hannes Muesch wrote:
> Dear List
>
> I am afraid I am not the only one who is at times annoyed by having to
> overhear mobile phone users ranting in public spaces. Strangely
> enough, it
> seems to me that overhearing a face-to-face conversation happens much
> less
> frequently and when it does it seems much less annoying. I wonder whether
> there is a consensus that
....
There is another reason why overhearing people using mobile phones are more
annoying than hearing face to face conversations, that nobody seems to have
mentioned. When overhearing a mobile phone conversation we can only hear
one side, whereas eavesdropping on a face to face conversation generally
gives us access to both. Being naturally nosey creatures it is of course
frustrating to only hear half the conversation.
...Lowel.
--
_______________________________________________________________
Dr. Lowel P. M. O'Mard PhD.
CNBH, Hearing Research Laboratory, Dept. of Psychology,
University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK.
http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/hearinglab
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:25:16 +0100
From: Roy Patterson <roy.patterson@MRC-CBU.CAM.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: threshold/masking data
At 16:55 16/08/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>does anybody out there have any pure-tone threshold and simultaneous
>masking data for normal hearing listeners aged from 13 to 40 or
>thereabouts. We're interested in how closely these two scores correlate if
>at all.
We showed positive correlations at 0.5 and 2.0 kHz but not at 4.0 kHz.
See
Patterson, R.D., Nimmo-Smith, I., Weber, D.L., and Milroy, R. (1982). The
deterioration of hearing with age: Frequency selectivity, the critical
ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 72,
1788-1803.
There is a table of correlations on page 1794.
Cheers Roy P
__________________________________________________
Roy D. Patterson
Centre for the Neural Basis of Hearing
Physiology Department, University of Cambridge
Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EG
phone 44 (1223) 333819 office
phone 44 (1223) 333837 lab
fax 44 (1223) 333840 department
email rdp1@cam.ac.uk
or
email roy.patterson@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk
http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/personal/roy.patterson/
http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/personal/roy.patterson/aim
http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/personal/roy.patterson/cnbh
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:53:01 -0500
From: Tom Brennan <g_brennantg@TITAN.SFASU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Annoyance of cell phone use in public spaces
Hi Lowel. While what you say is true, if it was a major player people
should be
just as annoyed hearing someone using a regular telephone and that doesn't
seem
to be the case.
Tom
Tom Brennan, CCC-A/SLP, RHD
web page http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html
web master http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_freemanfj/speechscience.html
web master http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_freemanfj/fluency.html
------------------------------
End of AUDITORY Digest - 15 Aug 2001 to 16 Aug 2001 (#2001-159)
***************************************************************