ArticleTrends in hearing
Characterizing Perception of Impulse Sounds Through Subjective Ratings and Pupillometric Responses.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Impulse sounds such as clinking dishes or slamming objects are often perceived as particularly intense or uncomfortable, yet their perceptual characterization remains insufficiently understood. The present study systematically examined subjective and physiological responses to ecologically valid impulse sounds in young normal-hearing adults. Twenty-seven participants rated nine impulse sounds presented at peak levels between 80 and 120 dB SPL in three acoustic conditions: anechoic, reverberant (room-convolved), and anechoic embedded in the International Speech Test Signal (ISTS) at 65 dB SPL. Loudness and discomfort were assessed using categorical rating scales, and pupil dilation was recorded as an index of autonomic arousal. Both perceptual scales followed Stevens-type growth functions. Loudness increased gradually with level, whereas discomfort showed a delayed onset, but steeper growth once activated. Test-retest reliability was excellent for both scales (ICC ≈0.88). Acoustic condition significantly influenced perception: reverberant stimuli yielded higher perceived intensity and lower 50% thresholds than anechoic presentations for most impulse types, while embedding impulses in speech produced comparatively small effects. Mean pupil dilation increased with presentation level and was significantly associated with both loudness and discomfort ratings. Linear mixed-effects modeling demonstrated that subjective ratings explained pupil dilation more strongly than physical level once both were included in the model. Neither uncomfortable loudness levels nor self-reported sound sensitivity significantly predicted ratings or physiological responses. These findings provide a systematic characterization of impulse sound perception in a normal-hearing population and demonstrate a close correspondence between subjective intensity judgments and autonomic responses under controlled laboratory conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.