MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION SCALING OF ...

Perceptual andMotor Skills, 1997,84,663-670. O Perceptual and Motor Skills 1997

MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION SCALING O F ANNOYANCE IN RESPONSE TO ROCK MUSIC: EFFECTS O F SEX AND LISTENERS' PREFERENCE ' DONALD FUCCI

LINDA PETROSINO

Ohio University Athens, Ohio

Bozoling Green Sfate Universitj Bowling Green, Ohio

BROOKE HALLOWELL, LISA ANDRA, CORRY WILCOX

Ohio UniuersiQ Athens, Ohio Szrmmary.-The present study parallels an earlier one Fucci, Petrosino, and Banks in 1994 concerned with sex and Listeners' preference effects on magnitude escimation scaling of rock music. The ddference between the two studies is that the subjects in 1994 were asked to scale "loudness" while the present subjects were asked to scale "annoyance." The prior results and those of the present study were ddferent, i.e., the women's preference appeared influential in the magnitude estimation scaling of rock music previously but here the men's preference appeared influential. If subjects are instructed to judge the annoyance of an auditory signal, they may respond differently than if asked to judge its loudness. Judgments of annoyance appear to be more context dependent whereas loudness judgments may reflect a perceptual process more closely related to physical aspects of the signal.

A series of studies have recently been performed in which the psychophysical method of magnitude estimation has been used to scale complex auditory stimuh. The purpose of these studies was to obtain a better understanding of the perceptual aspects of auditory processing of stimulus condltions which closely approximate those found in speech perception. Fucci, Harris, Petrosino, and Banks (1993) investigated the effect of preference for rock music on magnitude-estimation s c h g in young adults. Fucci, Petrosino, and Banks (1994) studied the effects of gender and listeners' preference on magnitude-estimation s c h g of rock music. Banks, Fucci, Petrosino, Leach, and Christopher (1994) looked at the effect of personality on magnitude-estimation s c a h g of complex auditory stimuli. In 1996, Fucci, Petrosino, Banks, Zaums, and Wilcox, employed three ddferent types of music (rock music, classical music, and big band music) to examine further the effects of magnitude-estimation s c a h g of complex audtory stimul~in young adults. Also, in 1996, Fucci, Petrosino, Hallowell, Banks, and Zaums, stud-

'Reprint requests may be addressed to Donald Fucci, Ph.D., School of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701.

664

D.FUCCI. ET AL.

ied the linguistic aspects of complex auditory stirnuh through magnitude-estirnation s c h g of instrumental music, instrumental music with vocal accompaniment, and spoken lyrics. In all of these studies, the sensory attribute that subjects were instructed to scale was loudness. HassmCn (1994), indicated that there was a disparity in the results of the studes by Fucci, el al. (1993), and Banks, et a/. (1994). Ln both studes, the grouping of subjects was based on their preferences for rock music. In the Fucci, et al. study, those subjects who liked rock music perceived the loudness to be significantly lower than those who dished rock music. In the Banks, et al. study, no difference in numerical responses on the magnitudeestimation task could be detected between two groups of subjects. The group who liked rock music rated the loudness of the presented samples no differently than the group who disliked rock. music. Hassmen (1994) suggested that these contradictory results may indicate that "subjects generally seem to have a hard time separating the loudness dimension from the annoyance dimension" (p. 1325). Obtained scales of perceived loudness and perceived annoyance have relatively high correlations (Fastl, 1985; Berglund, Preis, & Rankin, 1990). Ln a recent study, perceived annoyance shared 81% of the variance with perceived loudness during the judgment of similarity of sounds presented sequentially in pairs (Berglund, Hassmkn, & Preis, 1994). The conclusion would be that subjects rating the loudness of complex sounds may let subjective feehgs of annoyance influence their numerical responses. Even though, in the studies mentioned above (Fucci, et al., 1993; Banks, et al., 1994), the subjects were carefully instructed to rate loudness, they might also have been influenced by the annoyance they experienced when listening to the resented stirnuh (HassmCn, 1994). The purpose of the present study was to explore the possible influence of annoyance on the magnitude-estimation scaling of complex auditory stimu l ~The . paradigm selected was the same as that of the Fucci, et al. (1994) investigation in which gender as well as preference for rock music were controlled variables. The difference in the present study and the Fucci, et al. (1994) study lies in the fact that the subjects were instructed to scale "annoyance" instead of "loudness," for nine dhferent stimulus intensities of rock music.

Subjects Four groups of college students were tested. Those students were part of a larger contingency of 250 students enrolled in an introductory course in speech and hearing disorders at Ohio University. Preference for rock music was ascertained for all students through a written survey in which subjects

SCALING ANNOYANCE RESPONSE TO MUSIC

665

were asked to circle a phrase that best described how much they hked or disliked rock music. The subjects were given five choices: Definitely Dislike, Moderately Dislike, Neutral, Moderately Like, and Definitely Lke. Approximately 30% of aU subjects surveyed circled the extreme categories (Definitely Dislike or Definitely Lke). The percentages of inhviduals who fit these two categories were relatively even for men and women. Those subjects who circled the extreme categories and who were wding and avdable to participate in the experiment were screened for normal speech and hearing and interviewed for any medical or physical condtions which could have interfered with experimental results. Apparatus The audtory stimulus used in this study was 10 sec. of rock music (Heartbreaker by Led Zeppeh, 1969). The stimulus sample was recorded onto a 3M Model AVT professional cassette tape using a Sony optimum recording level for the tape deck (0 volume units) and had an internal variation of f 5 decibels (dB) sound pressure level. The equipment used to deliver the auditory stimulus to the subjects included a JVC Model TD-W303 tape deck, a Grason-Stadler Instruments (GSI) speech audiometer Model 1716, and TDH-50P headphones. The auchometer, calibrated to the standards of the American National Standards Lnstitute (ANSI, 1969), was used for control of stimulus intensity. The auditory stimulus was delivered to the subjects binaurally through the TDH-SOP headphones. Procedure All four groups of subjects received the same experimental treatment. During a single test session each subject was seated in a comfortable chair in a sound-treated booth. The TDH-SOP headphones were placed over both ears for binaural presentation of the auditory stimulus. Hearing threshold was determined using the same 10 sec. of rock music used as the suprathreshold auditory stimulus for the experiment. It was necessary to obtain hearing thresholds so that the suprathreshold intensities used for magnitude estimation.could be set with reference to each subject's threshold of sensitivity (Verrdo, Fraioli, & Smith, 1969). At the same time, the threshold information also confirmed that all subjects had hearing within normal limits (Newby & Popelka, 1992). A descendmg method of h i t s was used to assess each subject's threshold of sensitivity. The subject was instructed to raise one hand as soon as the stimulus was detected. Three consecutive hand signals at the lowest decibel hearing level (dB HL) were accepted as the hearing threshold. Thresholds for Group 1 ranged from -5 to 5 dB HL (M= 0.5 dB HL). Thresholds for Group 2 ranged from -5 to 10 dB HL (M=2.0 dB HL). Thresholds for

666

D. FUCCI. ET AL

Group 3 ranged from -10 to 10 dB HL (M= 1.5 dB HL). Thresholds for Group 4 ranged from 0 to 10 dB HL (M=4.5 dB HL). During the au&tory magnitude-estimation task, each subject was instructed to assign numbers to the rock music stimulus presented in a randomly ordered series of nine sensation levels (SL). The sensation levels were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 dB above the subject's threshold. The subject listened to the 10-sec. sample of rock music presented at each sensation level before providing a number. The subject was instructed to assign a number according to how annoying (bothersome) the music was. Whole numbers, decimals, and fractions were permissible responses (Zwisloclu & Goodman, 1980). Subjects were encouraged to be spontaneous when assigning numbers and not to make judgments based on previous stimulus presentations. No reference standard was ~rovidedby the experimenter (Hellman & Zwislocki, 1963, 1964; Poulton, 1968, 1979; Zwislocki & Goodman, 1980). Once a subject provided a numerical response for the stimulus just listened to, another intensity of the stimulus was set by the experimenter and then presented to the subject. This procedure provided approximately a 2min. interval between stimulus presentations. For each group, the geometric means of the subjects' numerical responses to a single run of each of the nine stimulus intensities were taken as the mean auditory rnagnitude-estirnation responses for that group (Petrosino, Fucci, & Harris, 1985). AND DISCUSSION RESULTS An analysis of variance repeated-measures design was performed on the magnitude-estimation scaling data obtained from the four subject groups. All subjects provided significantly dLfferent numerical responses to the nine stimulus intensities used for scaling (F8,,=4.56, p 2.004). As the stinulus intensities were increased, the numerical responses of the subjects increased accordingly (Figs. 1 and 2). There was no main effect for sex. Over-all, when preference for rock music was not taken into account, no difference was found between the magnitude-estimation s c a h g results of the women and men (F,,, =2.00, p 5 .I I). Likewise, there was no main effect of preference alone on subjects' annoyance ratings (F,,,,=2.4, p 1.11). There was a significant interaction effect for sex and preference. No over-all differences in scaling responses were found between the women who dishked rock music and the women who liked rock music (F,,,,=13.52, p 2 2 0 ; Fig. 1). However, the men who & s u e d rock music ~rovidedsignificantly different numerical responses from the men who hked rock music (F,,,,=13.52, p < .0001). It can be noted in Fig. 2, that those men who disk e d rock music appeared to perceive this complex stimulus as more annoying than those men who liked rock music, at all nine stimulus intensities.

SCALING ANNOYANCE RESPONSE TO MUSIC

667

= Group 1, Women, Like Rock Music = Group 2, Women, Dislike Rock Music

Sensation Level, dB FIG. 1. Ma nitude escirnation of rock music by nvo groups of women, those who like rock music and tiose who dislike rock music

These results support previous findings that men and women perform differently on magnitude-estimation scaling tasks (Verrlllo, 1979; Petrosino, Fucci, Harris, & Randolph-Tyler, 1988; Fucci, Petrosino, Schuster, & Wagner, 1990; Fucci, et al., 1994), but only if preference is considered a significant factor. Sex alone did not account for differences in scaling responses; however, subjects' k i n g or d~slikingof rock music did differentially affect the ratings of men as compared to women. The results of the Fucci, et al. (1994) study and the present study were different. In the Fucci, ei al. (1994) study, it was the women for whom preference appeared to be an influential factor in the magnitude-estimation scaling of rock music. Ln the present study, it was the men for whom preference appeared to be an influential factor. The only difference in the present study's protocol and that of Fucci, et al. (1994) was that the subjects were asked to scale "annoyance" instead of "loudness." All other aspects of the parahgm remained the same.

668

D.FUCCI. ET AL.

In the Fucci, et al. (1994) study, discussion is provided concerning the fact that the auditory sensory systems of men and women appear to operate similarly. The differences iri the scaling results of the men and women in that study were attributed to the concept that men and women assign numbers differently in magnitude-estimation s c h g tasks (Verritlo, 1979; Petrosino, et al., 1988; Fucci, et al., 1990). What is not clear at this time is the reason for the fact that, when subjects were asked to scale "loudness" women scaled according to preference (Fucci, et a[., 1994) and when subjects were asked to scale "annoyance" men scaled according to preference (present study). I100

:: 10

-

:1

= Group 3, Men, Like Rock Music = Group 4, Men, Dislike Rock Music

.

10 I

20 I

30 I

40

50

I

I

60 I

70

80

90

I

I

I

,

Sensation Level, dB FIG. 2. Magnitude escimarion of rock music by two groups of men, those who ltke rock music and those who disltke rock music

Annoyance may, in fact, be another dimension to which subjecrs are responding during the magnitude-estimation sc&g of complex auditory stimuli. Although obtained scales of perceived loudness and perceived annoyance appear to have relatively high correlations (Fastl, 1985; Berglund, et a/.,

SCALING ANNOYANCE RESPONSE TO MUSIC

669

19901, subjects may weigh these concepts differently depending on which one they are being asked to rate. There is the suggestion in the literature that annoyance and loudness are processed differently as magnitude-estimation s c a h g concepts. Annoyance might be considered a subjective phenomenon that is highly dependent on the particular situation in which it is being judged. Loudness might be considered a more restricted concept that has to do directly with perceptual processing of magnitudes (Hellman, 1982). Berglund, et al. (1990) have indicated that, in real Me situations, perceived annoyance of sound has a more complex origin than perceived loudness. Accordmg to these and other researchers, loudness may be only one aspect of annoyance, annoyance being the more encompassing concept which can be influenced by signal frequency, signal intensity, signal duration, and signal intermittence, as well as the indvidual's feelings at the time of testing (Galanter, 1978; Sharf & Horton, 1978; Berglund, Berglund, Goldstein, & Lindvall, 1981; Hellman, 1982; Berglund, et al., 1990; Dornic & Laaksonen, 1989). If subjects are instructed to judge the annoyance factor of an auditory signal, they may respond differently than if asked to judge the loudness factor. As suggested by Hassmkn (1994), subjects may be judging annoyance and loudness simultaneously even though only one of these factors is a part of the instructions. This situation can be even more confounded if the auditory s~gnalis one for which subjects may have an expressed preference, as was the case with the rock music stimuh used in the'Fucci, et al., 1994 study as well as the present one. Further research is warranted. Experimentation replicating this protocol, but using larger subject groups, and subjects serving as their own controls in both "loudness" and "annoyance" rating tasks is presently in progress. REFERENCES I N S T I ~ (1969) E. American National Standard spen$cations for AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS audiometers. (ANSI S3.6-1969) New York: ANSI. BANKS.M., FUCCI,D.. PETROSINO, L., LEACH,E.. &CHRISTOPHER, D. (1994) The effect of personality on magnitude estimation scaling of complex auditory stimuli. Percepfual and Motor Skiffx,79, 435-442. BERGLUND, B., BERGLUND, U., GOLDSTEIN, M., &LINDVALL, T. (1981) Loudness or (annoyance) summation of combined community noises. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 1628-1634. BERGLUND, B., HASSMBN, P., &PREIS,A. (1994) On perceived similarity of complex sounds. In L. M. Ward (Ed.), Fechner Day '94. Proceedings of the Tenth Antzual Meeting of fhe International Society for Psychophysics. Vancouver, Canada: The Internatjonal Society for P~~chophysics. Pp. 85-90. BERGLUND, B., PREIS,A., & RANKIN,K. (1990) Relationship berween loudness and annoyance €01 ten community sounds. Environment Internafionaf, 16, 523-531. DORNIC,S., &LAICSONEN, T. (1989) Continous noise, intermittent noise, and annoyance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 11-18. F A S ~H., (1985) Loudness and annoyance of sounds: subjective evaluation and data from I S 0

670

D. FUCCI, ET AL.

532B. In Inter-Noise '8J, Val. II. Dortmund, FRG: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz. Pp. 1403-1406. Fuccr, D., HARRIS, D., PETROSINO, L., &BANKS,M. (1993) Effect of preference for rock music on magnitude estimation scaling behavior in young adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 1171-1176. Fuccr, D., PETROSINO, L.. &BANKS,M. (1994) The effects of gender and listener preference on magnitude estimation scaling of rock music. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 1235-1242. Fuccr, D., PETROSINO, L., BANKS, M., LUMS. K, &WILCOX, C. (in press) The effect of preference for three dderent types of music on magnitude estimation scaling behavior in young adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, in press. Fuccr, D., PETROSINO, L., HALLOWELL, B., BANKS,M., &ZAUMS,K. (1996) Linguistic aspects of magnitude-estimation s c a h g of instrumental music, instrumental music with vocal accompaniment, and spoken lyrics. Perceptual and Moror Skills, 82, 1387-1390. Fuccl, D., PETROSINO, L., SCHUSTER, 5.. &WAGNER, 5. (1990) Com arison of lingual vibrotactile suprathreshold numerical responses in men and women: effects of threshold s h h during magnitude-estimation scahng. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 483-492. GALANTER, E. (1978) The annoyance of sound and of other ltfe events. Jotrmal of the Acoustical Society of America Supplement 1 , 63, S17. HASSM~N, P. (1994) Relationship between loudness and annoyance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1325-1326. HELLMAN, R. (1982) Loudness, annoyance, and noisiness produced by single-tone-noise complexes. Jozrrnal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72, 62-73. HELLMAN, R., & ZWSLOCKI. J. (1963) Monaural loudness function at 1000 cps and interaural summation. ]otrrnal ofthe Acousfical Society of America, 35, 856-865. HELLMAN, R., &ZWISLOCKI, J. (1964) Loudness of a 1000-cps tone in the presence of a masking noise. lournal of the Acoustical Society of America, 36, 1618-1627. LED ZEPPELIN (MUSICIANS). (1969) Led Zeppelin I1. (CD R e c o r b g No. 19127-2) New York: Atlantic Recording Corp. NEVIBY,H., &POPELKA. G. (1992) Audiology. Englewood CliEfs, N J : Prentice-Hall. L., FUCCI,D., &HARRIS,D. (1985) Effects of single session repetitive judgments on PETROSINO, magnitude estimation scales for lingual vibroractile sensation. Perception G Psychophysics, 37, 205-208. PETROSINO, L., FUCCI,D.,HARRIS,D.,& RANDOLPH-TYLER, E. (1988) Lingual vibrotactile/auditory magnitude estimation and cross-modal matching: comparison of supcarhreshold responses in men and women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 291-300. POULTON, E. C. (1968) The new psychophysics: six models for magnitude estimation. Psychological Bttllefin, 69, 1-19. POULTON, E. C. (1979) Models for biases in juding sensory magnitude. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 777-803. SHARF, B., &HORTON. T. J. (1978) S c a h g loudness and annoyance as a function o l duration. Jozrrnal of the Acousfical Society of America Supplement 1, 63, Sl6. VERRILLO, R. T. (1979) Comparison of vibrotactile threshold and suprathreshold responses in men and women. Perception & P~~chophys~cs, 26, 20-24. VERRILLO. R. T.. FRAIOLI, A . i . , &SMITH,R. L. (1969) Sensation magnitude of vibroractile stimuli. Perception & Psyc ophysrcs, 6, 366-372. ZWISLOCKI, I., &GOODMAN,D. (1980) Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: a vddation. Perception G Psychophysics, 28, 28-38.