Controlled experiments trace sound-feature variables against listeners’ behavioral responses

Evidence

Unlike physiological experiments, where we can measure the response elicited by a single stimulus, a masking study always involves at least two sounds: a signal and a masker. The signal is the sound being detected, whereas the masker is the interfering sound. Often the signal is a pure tone, but in principle, it can be any type of sound, such as speech and complex sounds. The same is true for the masker; it can be any type of sound such as noise, speech, or tones. In these studies, by measuring the influence of a masker on a signal, we can make inferences about how the signal or the masker is represented by the auditory system. — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 441 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Subjects bias adjustment experiments by setting sounds louder for good audibility; ANOVA tests whether independent variables affect listening-test outcomes; Experimental method determines what discrepancies listeners can perceive (+12 more)

Related

• Masking experiments infer auditory representation from masker effects on signals. (similarity 0.88)
• Masking noise prevents listeners from using unintended spectral cues (similarity 0.86)
• Subjects bias adjustment experiments by setting sounds louder for good audibility (similarity 0.85)
• Physiological tests measure neural representation, not actual hearing (similarity 0.85)
• Loud maskers can paradoxically improve audibility at condensation peaks. (similarity 0.84)
• Masking reduces to a comparison of excitation-level patterns over frequency and time (similarity 0.83)
• A masker raises the audibility threshold of a test sound. (similarity 0.83)
• Masking patterns reveal the ear’s internal psychological representation of a sound. (similarity 0.83)
• Masking operates on a continuous scale between audible and fully masked. (similarity 0.83)
• Masking depends on stimulus fluctuations in ways steady-state models cannot predict. (similarity 0.82)
• Presentation method, room acoustics, and listener state are independent variables in listening experiments (similarity 0.82)
• Attention shapes what a listener perceives as loud in complex soundscapes (similarity 0.82)
• Added masking noise prevents off-frequency cues in hearing experiments (similarity 0.82)
• Loudness-matching experiments are designed around ecological validity of real-world listening. (similarity 0.82)
• Auditory assessment must account for the listener’s response bias, not just sensitivity (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Masking experiments infer auditory representation from masker effects on signals. #expands (0.85) — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 441
• Attention shapes what a listener perceives as loud in complex soundscapes #expands (0.75)
• Psychoacoustic models govern which audio information can be discarded unnoticed #expands (0.72)