Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A PSYCHOPHYSICAL MODEL OF ACCEPTABLE NOISE LEVEL FROM A HUMAN SOUND PROCESSING PERSPECTIVE
1
Environmental Health and Safety, Purdue University Northwest, Indiana, United States
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
Publication date: 2022-03-01
Corresponding author
Bankole K. Fasanya
Environmental Health and Safety, College of Technology, Purdue University Northwest, 2200 169th Street, 46375, Hammond, Indiana, United States; email: fbankole@pnw.edu
Environmental Health and Safety, College of Technology, Purdue University Northwest, 2200 169th Street, 46375, Hammond, Indiana, United States; email: fbankole@pnw.edu
J Hear Sci 2021;11(4):30-35
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Acceptable noise level (ANL) is a metric developed for quantifying the maximum amount of background noise one is willing and able to accept – when not tired or tensed – while involved in mundane work. ANLs have been shown to vary with the individual although they are generally independent of age, gender, and hearing sensitivity. This study develops a psychophysically based mathematical model of ANL that includes an individual’s sound judgment bias and discriminability.
Material and methods:
This paper expands Stevens’ mathematical model of sound power to develop an explicit psychophysical model. The model includes an individual’s judgment bias and sound discriminability to predict their ANL and uncovers the reason for individual ANL variability.
Results:
Using simulated data, the developed model shows how an individual’s ANL can be predicted based on their sound discriminability and judgment bias score. A regression analysis on the simulated data showed an R-square of 0.85 (p = 0.0001) between discriminability and simulated ANL data. There was a logarithmic relationship between individual ANL and sound discriminability.
Conclusions:
The model well replicates human auditory sound processing. The higher the ANL, the higher the individual’s judgment bias toward the background noise and the better their ability to discriminate between the signal and background noise.
Acceptable noise level (ANL) is a metric developed for quantifying the maximum amount of background noise one is willing and able to accept – when not tired or tensed – while involved in mundane work. ANLs have been shown to vary with the individual although they are generally independent of age, gender, and hearing sensitivity. This study develops a psychophysically based mathematical model of ANL that includes an individual’s sound judgment bias and discriminability.
Material and methods:
This paper expands Stevens’ mathematical model of sound power to develop an explicit psychophysical model. The model includes an individual’s judgment bias and sound discriminability to predict their ANL and uncovers the reason for individual ANL variability.
Results:
Using simulated data, the developed model shows how an individual’s ANL can be predicted based on their sound discriminability and judgment bias score. A regression analysis on the simulated data showed an R-square of 0.85 (p = 0.0001) between discriminability and simulated ANL data. There was a logarithmic relationship between individual ANL and sound discriminability.
Conclusions:
The model well replicates human auditory sound processing. The higher the ANL, the higher the individual’s judgment bias toward the background noise and the better their ability to discriminate between the signal and background noise.
REFERENCES (30)
1.
Kattel BP, Fasanya BK, Letowski TR, Hargrove SK. The effect of types of background noise on the acceptable noise levels of individuals with normal hearing. In: Proceeding of the 13th Annual International Conference of Industrial Engineering, Las Vegas, NV, 2008.
2.
Rao MD, Letowski T. Speech intelligibility of the Call Sign Acquisition Test (CAT) for army communication systems. Audio Engineering Society, 2003, 5836.
3.
Maxwell EL, Evans WG. Design of childcare centers and effects of noise on young children. Minneapolis, IN: DesignShare 1999.
4.
Valla AF, Sweetow RW. Psychology on individuals with hearing impairment. In: RE Sandlin, Textbook of Hearing Aid Amplification: Technical and clinical considerations, 2000 (2nd ed.), San Diego, CA, pp. 557– 70.
5.
Heeger D. Signal detection theory (lecture note). Retrieved August 23, 2020. Available from http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~david/...; 1997.
6.
Borisyuk A. Physiology and mathematical modeling of the auditory system. In: Tutorials in Mathematical Biosciences I. Springer, Berlin, 2005, pp. 107–68.
7.
Schomer P. A White Paper: Assessment of Noise Annoyance. Champaign, IL, Schomer and Associates, 2001.
8.
Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res, 1991; 34: 679–85.
9.
Nabelek AK, Tampas JW, Burchfield SB. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Hear Res, 2004; 47: 1001–11.
10.
Fasanya BK, Omotoso O, Fasanya OA. Effect of age on inter and intra-subject variability in acceptable noise level (ANL) in listeners with normal hearing. Management Sci Letters, 2013; 3(2), 385–94.
11.
Rogers DS, Harkrider AW, Burchfield SB, Nabelek AK. The influence of listener’s gender on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 2003; 14(7): 372–82.
12.
Harkrider AW, Tampas JW. Differences in responses from the cochleae and central nervous systems of females with low versus high acceptable noise levels. J Am Acad Audiol, 2006; 17, 667–76.
13.
Green DM, Swets JA. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (vol. 1). New York, NY: Wiley 1966.
14.
Crowley HJ, Nabelek IV. Estimation of client-assessed hearing aid performance based upon unaided variables. J Speech Hear Res, 1996; 39, 19–27.
15.
Freyaldenhoven MC, Smiley DF. Acceptance of background noise in children with normal hearing. J Educational Audiol, 2006; 13, 27–31.
16.
Harkrider AW, Smith SB. Acceptable noise level, phoneme recognition in noise, and measures of auditory efferent activity. J Am Acad Audiol, 2005; 16, 530–45.
17.
Tucker DA. Central auditory processing. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of North Carolina Greensboro, 2009.
18.
Ghosh VPG, Hemavathi V. Temporal resolution of individuals with varying degrees of acceptable noise level. J Hear Sci, 2019; 9(2): 19–24.
19.
Micheyl C, Kaernbach C, Demany, L. An evaluation of psychophysical models of auditory change perception. Psychological Review, 2008; 115(4), 1069–83.
20.
Moore IB. Phillips R. Central auditory processing evaluations. clEarAudiology, PLLC. Retrieved October 29, 2020. Available from http://www.clearaudiology.com/....
21.
Kantowitz BH, Sorkin RD. Human Factors: Understanding people–system relationships. Toronto: Wiley, 1983.
22.
Fasanya BK. Computational analyses of auditory discriminability using data from acceptable signal-to-noise ratio experiment. Intl J Human Factors Ergonomics, 2019; 6(2), 143–159.
23.
Luce RD, Krumhansl C. Measurement, scaling, and psychophysics. In: Atkinson RC, Herrnstein RJ, Lindzey G, Luce RD (eds). Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology, New York, NY: Wiley; 1988, pp. 1–74.
24.
Wertheimer M. The variability of auditory and visual absolute thresholds in time. J Gen Psychol, 1955; 52: 111–47.
25.
Hawley ML, Sherlock LP, Formby C. Intra- and intersubject variability in audiometric measures and loudness judgments in older listeners with normal hearing. Semin Hear, 2017; 38(1), 3–25.
26.
Adams EM, Moore RE. Effects of speech rate, background noise, and simulated hearing loss on speech rate judgment and speech intelligibility in young listeners. J Am Acad Audiol, 2009; 20(1), 28–39.
27.
Schum D. Speech understanding in background noise. In: M. Valente (ed.), Hearing Aids: Standards, options, and limitations. New York: Thieme, 1996; pp. 368–406.
28.
Killion MC. SNR loss: “I can hear what people say, but I can’t understand them”. Hearing Revolution Journal, 1997; 4(12), 8–14.
29.
Tampas JW, Harkrider AW. Auditory evoked potentials in females with high and low acceptance of background noise when listening to speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 2006; 119: 1548–61.
30.
Von Hapsburg D, Bahng J. Acceptance of background noise levels in bilingual (Korean–English) listeners. J Am Acad Audiol, 2006; 17: 649–58.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
