MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404214280 · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2024.109147

Sensory and affective dimensions in loudness perception: Insights from young adults

2024· article· en· W4404214280 on OpenAlexafffund
Charlotte Bigras, Victoria Duda, Sylvie Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueHearing Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLoudnessSensory systemPsychologyPerceptionAudiologyAuditory perceptionCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Natural and artificial sounds were used to dissociate sensory and affective loudness. • The relationship between loudness and unpleasantness varies with intensity. • Emotional valence and intensity uniquely impact both dimensions. • Artificial sounds are rated as loud and unpleasant at high intensities. • Noise sensitivity and depression influence both dimensions of loudness. Traditional psychoacoustic measures often lack accuracy in diagnosing hyperacusis and other sound tolerance disorders, possibly due to their reliance on artificial stimuli and unidimensional scales. The aim of this study was to assess loudness across sensory and affective dimensions using natural sounds, drawing on pain research wherein intensity and unpleasantness are assessed separately. We hypothesized that similar distinctions apply to loudness perception. A total of 102 young adults with normal to mild hearing loss rated 32 sound stimuli (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral, and artificial) at 10 intensities (40 to 100 dBA) on sensory and affective scales. They also completed the Hyperacusis Questionnaire, the Noise Sensitivity Scale, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Mixed linear models indicated both correlations and dissociations between scales that varied according to intensity and valence. Louder stimuli were rated as more unpleasant, but only at high intensities. On the sensory scale, sounds were perceived as louder with increasing intensity; however, at low to moderate intensities, pleasant and neutral sounds were rated as louder, whereas at higher intensities, artificial and unpleasant stimuli were rated as louder. On the affective scale, the perception of unpleasantness also increased with intensity, but less steeply. At high intensities, artificial stimuli were rated similarly to unpleasant stimuli. Noise sensitivity scores predicted louder and more unpleasant ratings, whereas depression scores were associated with softer and less pleasant perceptions. This study highlights the need for multidimensional approaches in audiology and suggests that the integration of sensory and affective scales with natural stimuli may improve the diagnosis and treatment of sound tolerance disorders.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHearing ResearchSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207