
doi: 10.1038/19446
Neuhoff replies — Canevet and his colleagues suggest that their findings address dynamic loudness change and are inconsistent with my recent discovery of a bias for rising intensity tones1. However, the two sets of experiments address fundamentally different questions. Canevet et al. 's listeners were asked to make judgements about loudness, whereas my listeners were asked to make judgements about the amount of dynamic change. Essentially, their listeners answered the question “How loud is it now?” by assigning a number to the loudness of a changing intensity sound at various times throughout the stimulus duration. This provided a discrete measure of loudness at various snapshots in time. Listeners in my experiments were specifically asked to ignore the overall loudness of the sounds and to make summary judgements about the amount of loudness change, essentially answering the question “How much did it change in loudness?”.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 12 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
