ライフサイエンスコーパス: loudness

1 were traded against a potential risk (i.e., loudness).

2 olute threshold corresponds to a fixed small loudness.

3 reshold corresponds to a fixed small partial loudness.

4 hanges, suggesting a perceptual dimension of loudness.

5 , negatively correlated with improvements in loudness.

6 had substantial beneficial effects on vocal loudness.

7 ong thought to be the primary determinate of loudness.

8 l processing to account for the summation of loudness across ears.

9 ral function can be associated with abnormal loudness adaptation and the magnitude of the adaptation

10 sorder had abnormally increased magnitude of loudness adaptation to both low (250 Hz) and high (8000

11 tested when afebrile for (i) psychophysical loudness adaptation to comfortably-loud sustained tones;

12 cts with auditory nerve disorders had normal loudness adaptation to low frequency tones; all but one

13 ort-term modifications in perceived tinnitus loudness after acoustic stimulation (residual inhibition

14 It is usually assumed that loudness and intensity change detection operate upon the

15 though the relationship between sound source loudness and power is well known when source distance is

16 tinnitus characteristics such as subjective loudness and the percent of time during which the tinnit

17 umeric rating scale (NRS) scores of tinnitus loudness and tinnitus perception.

18 able to reliably report perceived intensity (loudness), and discriminate fine intensity differences,

19 sound frequency (pitch) and sound intensity (loudness), and thus suggest a resolution to a long-stand

20 ese modifications led to a finite calculated loudness at absolute threshold, which made it possible t

21 difference in both arrival time (phase) and loudness between the two ears.

22 We offer an alternative explanation of loudness constancy based solely on a reverberant sound e

23 Here we show a robust loudness constancy, similar in many ways to visual size

24 over a 12-dB range to reduce the salience of loudness cues.

25 less of whether it is defined by phase or by loudness cues.

26 nsity change detection may be predicted from loudness data and vice versa.

27 mations of the underlying neural signal from loudness data contradict estimations based on intensity

28 views the evolution of a series of models of loudness developed in Cambridge, UK.

29 Problems include understanding speech, loudness discomfort, and annoyance with background noise

30 are also involved in auditory detection and loudness discrimination.

31 accurate distance estimates to judge source loudness, even when distance is variable.

32 g targets by pitch (Experiments 1A and 2) or loudness (Experiment 1B) while ignoring previously prese

33 ection (Experiment 1), and enhance perceived loudness (Experiment 2).

34 rallel, versions of the model for predicting loudness for hearing-impaired ears have been developed a

35 beyed a compressive function paralleling the loudness function up to sound pressure levels of at leas

36 was to test this prediction by examining the loudness functions in tinnitus ears (n = 124) compared w

37 ion paralleling both the cochlear output and loudness functions.

38 However, while loudness grows as intensity is increased, improvement in

39 te return (i.e., not considering the risk of loudness), however, DSL m[i/o] prescribed more outright

40 Furthermore, increased tinnitus loudness is represented by increased activity in the coc

41 view is that sound intensity (subjectively, loudness) is encoded in spike rates, whereas sound frequ

42 es, 95% central normalization, and a central loudness JND constant of 5.5x10(-5) sones per ms.

43 el, featuring central adaptation to the mean loudness level and operating on the detection of maximum

44 In this paper we use empirical loudness modeling to explore a perceptual sub-category o

45 ects that are used to increase the effective loudness of mate-attraction calls.

46 to give predictions of partial loudness-the loudness of one sound in the presence of another.

47 e explanations include (a) the idea that the loudness of sound depends on its frequency, (b) the freq

48 For example, humans naturally regulate the loudness of speech in accord with a visual estimate of r

49 ng from stimulus intensity, for example, the loudness of the utterance.

50 strate that males can dynamically adjust the loudness of their songs according to the distance to a f

51 ting in sympathetic vibrations that increase loudness, or at different frequencies, resulting in audi

52 n PC circuits in word recognition (P =.002), loudness (P =.003), overall liking (P =.001), aversivene

53 ption, (b) intensity discrimination, and (c) loudness perception.

54 perating on the detection of maximum central-loudness rate of change, can account for the paradoxical

55 ing detection thresholds, dynamic range, and loudness recruitment).

56 isentangle hypersensitivity (hyperacusis) to loudness recruitment, tinnitus and non-tinnitus ears wer

57 earing aids to compensate for the effects of loudness recruitment.

58 an be characterised by monotony of pitch and loudness, reduced stress, variable rate, imprecise conso

59 Through our findings, we argue that loudness reflects peripheral neural coding, and the inte

60 seems to depend more on the overall specific loudness than on the peripheral masking properties of th

61 ibration, nerve-fiber activity, or perceived loudness, the ear is most sensitive to small signals and

62 also modified to give predictions of partial loudness-the loudness of one sound in the presence of an

63 The nature of the neural codes for pitch and loudness, two basic auditory attributes, has been a key

64 xed, relatively little is known about source loudness under conditions of varying distance.

65 ansfer function and to the way that specific loudness was calculated from excitation level.

66 auditory cortex is correlated with tinnitus loudness, we assessed resting-state source-localized EEG