Loudness Scaling Revisited

Abstract

The present work was undertaken in an attempt to evaluate whether it is reasonable to expect that categorical loudness scaling can provide useful information for nonlinear hearing aid fitting. Normative data from seven scaling procedures show that the individual procedures relate the perceptual categories differently to sound level and with a substantial between-subject variance. Hearing-impaired data from four studies demonstrate that the inverse slope of the loudness function varies linearly with hearing loss and with a constant variance. In relation to hearing aid fitting, the slope can, in most cases, be predicted from the hearing loss with an accuracy within the range of a normal finetuning. For the fitting of nonlinear hearing aids, the statistical properties of both normal and impaired loudness functions are equally important. The present analysis strongly suggests that categorical loudness scaling cannot, in general, provide significant information for the fitting process.

Abbreviations: α = slope of fitted straight line, CB = critical band, COV_XY = covariance between variables χ and y, CR = compression ratio, G_L = hearing aid insertion gain at input level L, HTL = hearing threshold level, I/O = input/output, LGOB = loudness growth in ¹/₂–octave bands, RETSPL = reference threshold sound pressure level, S = slope of loudness growth function, VAR_X = variance of variable x, WDRC = wide dynamic range compression.

Key Words

Categorical loudness scaling - hearing aid fitting - loudness restoration - loudness scaling procedures - normative reference - slope of loudness function

Publication History

Article published online:
29 April 2022

• REFERENCES

• Allen JB, Hall JL, Seng PS. (1990). Loudness growth in ½-octave bands (LGOB)—a procedure for the assessment of loudness. J Acoust Soc Am 88:745–753.
• American National Standards Institute. Specifications for Audiometers. (ANSI S3.6–1989). New York: Acoustical Society of America.
• Beattie RC, Huynh RC, Ngo van N, Jones RL. (1997). IHAFF loudness contour test: reliability and effects of approach mode in normal hearing subjects. J Am Acad Audiol 8:243–256.
• Box GEP, Tiao GC. (1973). Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Cox RM, Alexander GC, Taylor IM, Gray GA. (1997). The Contour Test of Loudness Perception. Ear Hear 18:388–400.
• Elberling C, Nielsen C. (1993). The dynamics of speech and the auditory dynamic range in sensorineural hearing impairment. In: Beilin J, Jensen GR, eds. Recent Developments in Hearing Instrument Technology. Proceedings of the 15^th Danavox Symposium. 99–133. Copenhagen: Stougard Jensen.
• Hohmann V, Kollmeier B. (1995). Further development and use of hearing field scaling in clinics. Audiol Acoust 34:48–60.
• Humes L, Pavlovic C, Pluvinage V. (1994). Real Ear Loudness Mapping: RELM. Redwood City, CA: ReSound Corporation.
• International Electrotechnical Commission. (1973). IEC Reference Coupler for the Measurement o f Hearing Aids Using Earphones Coupled to the Ear by Means of Ear Inserts. (IEC 126–1973). Geneva: The Central Bureau of the International Electrotechnical Commission.
• International Electrotechnical Commission. (1981). Occluded-ear Simulator for the Measurement of Earphones Coupled to the Ear by Ear Inserts. (IEC 711–1981). Geneva: The Central Bureau of the International Electrotechnical Commission.
• International Organization for Standardization. (1991). Acoustics—Standard Reference Zero for the Calibration of Pure-tone Air Conduction Audiometers. (ISO 389–1991). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
• International Organization for Standardization. (1994). Acoustics—Reference Zero for the Calibration of Audiometrie Equipment—Part 2: Reference Equivalent Threshold Sound Pressure Levels for Pure Tones and Insert Earphones. (ISO 389–2–1994). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
• Jenstad LM, Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC. (1997). Effects of test procedure on individual loudness functions. Ear Hear 18:401–08.
• Kiessling J. (1995). Loudness growth in sensorineural hearing loss—consequences for hearing aid design and fitting. Audiol Acoust 34:82–89.
• Kiessling J, Steffens Τ, Wagner I. (1993). On the clinical applicability of loudness scaling. Audiol Acoust 32:100–115.
• Kiessling J, Schubert M, Archut A. (1995). Adaptive fitting of hearing instruments by category loudness scaling (ScalAdapt). Scand Audiol 25:153–160.
• Knight KK, Margolis RH. (1984). Magnitude estimation of loudness II: loudness perception in presbycusic listeners. J Speech Hear Res 27:28–32.
• Launer S. (1995). Loudness Perception in Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Impairment. Doctoral thesis, University of Oldenburg, Germany.
• Launer S, Holube I, Hohmann V, Kollmeier B. (1996). Categorical loudness scaling in hearing-impaired listeners—can loudness growth be predicted from the audiogram? Audiol Acoust 4:156–163.
• Palmer CV, Lindley GA. (1998). Reliability of the Contour Test in a population of adults with hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 9:209–215.
• Pascoe DP. (1978). An approach to hearing aid selection. Hear Instrum 29:12.
• Rasmussen AN, Olsen S0, Borgkvist BV, Nielsen LH (1998). Long-term test-retest reliability of categorical loudness scaling in normal hearing subjects using pure-tone stimuli. Scand Audiol 27:161–167.
• Reger S. (1936). Difference in loudness response of the normal and the hard-of-hearing ear at intensity levels slightly above threshold. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 45:1029–1039.
• Ricketts TA. (1997). Clinical use of loudness growth procedures. Hear J 50(3):10–20.
• Ricketts TA, Bentier RA. (1996). The effect of test signal type and bandwidth on the categorical scaling of loudness. J Acoust Soc Am 99:2281–2287.
• Siegel S. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill, Kogakusha.
• Valente Μ, Van Vliet D. (1997). The Independent Hearing Aid Fitting Forum (IHAFF) protocol. Trends in Amplification 2(l):6–35.