Loudness Summation Research Articles

Spectral and binaural loudness summation of equally loud narrowband signals in single-sided-deafness and bilateral cochlear implant users.

Recent studies on loudness perception of binaural broadband signals in hearing impaired listeners found large individual differences, suggesting the use of such signals in hearing aid fitting. Likewise, clinical cochlear implant (CI) fitting with narrowband/single-electrode signals might cause suboptimal loudness perception in bilateral and bimodal CI listeners. Here spectral and binaural loudness summation in normal hearing (NH) listeners, bilateral CI (biCI) users, and unilateral CI (uCI) users with normal hearing in the unaided ear was investigated to assess the relevance of binaural/bilateral fitting in CI users. To compare the three groups, categorical loudness scaling was performed for an equal categorical loudness noise (ECLN) consisting of the sum of six spectrally separated third-octave noises at equal loudness. The acoustical ECLN procedure was adapted to an equivalent procedure in the electrical domain using direct stimulation. To ensure the same broadband loudness in binaural measurements with simultaneous electrical and acoustical stimulation, a modified binaural ECLN was introduced and cross validated with self-adjusted loudness in a loudness balancing experiment. Results showed a higher (spectral) loudness summation of the six equally loud narrowband signals in the ECLN in CI compared to NH. Binaural loudness summation was found for all three listener groups (NH, uCI, and biCI). No increased binaural loudness summation could be found for the current uCI and biCI listeners compared to the NH group. In uCI loudness balancing between narrowband signals and single electrodes did not automatically result in a balanced loudness perception across ears, emphasizing the importance of binaural/bilateral fitting.

Audiological Performance of ADHEAR Systems in Simulated Conductive Hearing Loss: A Case Series with a Review of the Existing Literature.

A new non-invasive adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ABCD) has been proposed as an alternative solution for reversible bilateral conductive hearing loss in recurrent or long-lasting forms of otitis media with effusion (OME) in children that cannot undergo surgical treatment. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of ABCD in children with OME. Twelve normal-hearing Italian-speaking volunteers, in whom a conductive hearing loss was simulated, participated in the study. The free-field average hearing threshold was determined and, to evaluate binaural hearing skills, loudness summation and the squelch effect were assessed. Five conditions were tested: (1) unaided without earplugs, (2) unaided with bilateral earplugs, (3) aided right ear with bilateral earplugs, (4) aided left ear with bilateral earplugs, and (5) bilateral aid with bilateral earplugs. Post-hoc analysis showed a significant statistical difference between plugged, unplugged, and each aided condition. The main results were a better loudness summation and a substantial improvement of the squelch effect in the bilaterally aided. Our results suggest that ABCD is a valid treatment for patients with conductive hearing loss that cannot undergo bone conduction implant surgery. It is also important to consider bilateral aids in order to deal with situations in which binaural hearing is fundamental.

Mathematical framework for place coding in the auditory system.

In the auditory system, tonotopy is postulated to be the substrate for a place code, where sound frequency is encoded by the location of the neurons that fire during the stimulus. Though conceptually simple, the computations that allow for the representation of intensity and complex sounds are poorly understood. Here, a mathematical framework is developed in order to define clearly the conditions that support a place code. To accommodate both frequency and intensity information, the neural network is described as a space with elements that represent individual neurons and clusters of neurons. A mapping is then constructed from acoustic space to neural space so that frequency and intensity are encoded, respectively, by the location and size of the clusters. Algebraic operations -addition and multiplication- are derived to elucidate the rules for representing, assembling, and modulating multi-frequency sound in networks. The resulting outcomes of these operations are consistent with network simulations as well as with electrophysiological and psychophysical data. The analyses show how both frequency and intensity can be encoded with a purely place code, without the need for rate or temporal coding schemes. The algebraic operations are used to describe loudness summation and suggest a mechanism for the critical band. The mathematical approach complements experimental and computational approaches and provides a foundation for interpreting data and constructing models.

Toward an Individual Binaural Loudness Model for Hearing Aid Fitting and Development.

The individual loudness perception of a patient plays an important role in hearing aid satisfaction and use in daily life. Hearing aid fitting and development might benefit from individualized loudness models (ILMs), enabling better adaptation of the processing to individual needs. The central question is whether additional parameters are required for ILMs beyond non-linear cochlear gain loss and linear attenuation common to existing loudness models for the hearing impaired (HI). Here, loudness perception in eight normal hearing (NH) and eight HI listeners was measured in conditions ranging from monaural narrowband to binaural broadband, to systematically assess spectral and binaural loudness summation and their interdependence. A binaural summation stage was devised with empirical monaural loudness judgments serving as input. While NH showed binaural inhibition in line with the literature, binaural summation and its inter-subject variability were increased in HI, indicating the necessity for individualized binaural summation. Toward ILMs, a recent monaural loudness model was extended with the suggested binaural stage, and the number and type of additional parameters required to describe and to predict individual loudness were assessed. In addition to one parameter for the individual amount of binaural summation, a bandwidth-dependent monaural parameter was required to successfully account for individual spectral summation.

The "Missing 6 dB" Revisited: Influence of Room Acoustics and Binaural Parameters on the Loudness Mismatch Between Headphones and Loudspeakers.

Generations of researchers observed a mismatch between headphone and loudspeaker presentation: the sound pressure level at the eardrum generated by a headphone has to be about 6 dB higher compared to the level created by a loudspeaker that elicits the same loudness. While it has been shown that this effect vanishes if the same waveforms are generated at the eardrum in a blind comparison, the origin of the mismatch is still unclear. We present new data on the issue that systematically characterize this mismatch under variation of the stimulus frequency, presentation room, and binaural parameters of the headphone presentation. Subjects adjusted the playback level of a headphone presentation to equal loudness as loudspeaker presentation, and the levels at the eardrum were determined through appropriate transfer function measurements. Identical experiments were conducted at Oldenburg and Aachen with 40 normal-hearing subjects including 14 that passed through both sites. Our data verify a mismatch between loudspeaker and binaural headphone presentation, especially at low frequencies. This mismatch depends on the room acoustics, and on the interaural coherence in both presentation modes. It vanishes for high frequencies and broadband signals if individual differences in the sound transfer to the eardrums are accounted for. Moreover, small acoustic and non-acoustic differences in an anechoic reference environment (Oldenburg vs. Aachen) exert a large effect on the recorded loudness mismatch, whereas not such a large effect of the respective room is observed across moderately reverberant rooms at both sites. Hence, the non-conclusive findings from the literature appear to be related to the experienced disparity between headphone and loudspeaker presentation, where even small differences in (anechoic) room acoustics significantly change the response behavior of the subjects. Moreover, individual factors like loudness summation appear to be only loosely connected to the observed mismatch, i.e., no direct prediction is possible from individual binaural loudness summation to the observed mismatch. These findings – even though not completely explainable by the yet limited amount of parameter variations performed in this study – have consequences for the comparability of experiments using loudspeakers with conditions employing headphones or other ear-level hearing devices.

The gap prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle (GPIAS) paradigm to assess auditory temporal processing: Monaural versus binaural presentation.

The Gap Prepulse Inhibition of the Acoustic Startle Reflex (GPIAS) is a paradigm used to assess auditory temporal processing in both animals and humans. It consists of the presentation of a silent gap embedded in noise and presented a few milliseconds before a startle sound. The silent gap produces the inhibition of the startle reflex, a phenomenon called gap-prepulse inhibition (GPI). This paradigm is also used to detect tinnitus in animal models. The lack of inhibition by the silent gaps is suggested to be indicative of the presence of tinnitus "filling-in" the gaps. The current research aims at improving the GPIAS technique by comparing the GPI produced by monaural versus binaural silent gaps in 29 normal-hearing subjects. Two gap durations (5 or 50ms), each embedded in two different frequency backgrounds (centered around 500 or 4 kHz). Both low- and high- frequency narrowband noises had a bandwidth of half an octave. Overall, the startle magnitude was greater for the binaural versus the monaural presentation, which might reflect binaural loudness summation. In addition, the GPI was similar between the monaural and the binaural presentations for the high-frequency background noise. However, the GPI was greater for the low-frequency background noise for the binaural, compared to the monaural, presentation. These findings suggest that monaural GPIAS might be more suited to detect tinnitus compared to the binaural presentation.

Uni- and bilateral spectral loudness summation and binaural loudness summation with loudness matching and categorical loudness scaling

Objective Current hearing aid prescription rules assume that spectral loudness summation decreases with hearing impairment and that binaural loudness summation is independent of hearing loss and signal bandwidth. Previous studies have shown that these assumptions might be incorrect. Spectral loudness summation was measured and compared for loudness scaling and loudness matching. Design In this study, the effect of bandwidth on binaural summation was investigated by comparing loudness perception of low-pass filtered, high-pass filtered, and broadband pink noise at 35 Categorical Units for both unilateral and bilateral presentation. Study sample Sixteen hearing-impaired listeners. Results The results show that loudness differences between the three signals are different for bilateral presentation than for unilateral presentation. In specific, binaural loudness summation is larger for the low-pass filtered pink noise than for the high-pass filtered pink noise. Finally, individual variability in loudness perception near loudness discomfort level was found to be very large. Conclusions Loudness matching is offered as a fast and reliable method to measure individual loudness perception. As discomfort with loud sounds is one of the major problems encountered by hearing aid users, measurement of individual loudness perception could improve hearing aid fitting substantially.

Perception and prediction of loudness in sound coding strategies using simultaneous electric stimulation

Cochlear Implant (CI) sound coding strategies based on simultaneous stimulation lead to an increased loudness percept when compared to sequential stimulation using the same current levels. This is due to loudness summation as a result of channel interactions. Studying the loudness perception evoked by dual-channels compared to single-channels can be useful to optimize sound coding strategies that use simultaneous current pulses. Fourteen users of HiRes90k implants and one user of a CII implant loudness balanced single-channel to dual-channel stimuli with varying distance between simultaneous channels. In this study each component of a dual channel was a virtual channel, which shared current across two adjacent electrodes. Balancing was performed at threshold and comfortable level, for two spatial references (apical and basal) and for dual-channels with different relative current ratios. Increasing distance between dual-channels decreased the amount of current compensation in the dual-channel required to reach equal loudness to a single channel component by an average of 0.24 dB / mm without a significant difference between threshold and most comfortable level. If the components of the dual-channels were not at equal loudness, the loudness summation was reduced with respect to the equal loudness case. The results were incorporated into an existing loudness model by McKay et al. (2003). The predictions from the adapted model were evaluated by comparing the loudness evoked by simultaneous and sequential sound coding strategies. The application of the adapted model resulted in a deviation between predicted and actual behavioral loudness balancing adjustments in electrical level between simultaneous and sequential processing strategies of 0.24 dB on average.

Disentangling the contribution of head shadow, loudness summation, and binaural unmasking to spatial release from masking in children

Segregating target speech from noise is crucial for children’s ability to communicate effectively in everyday environments. Past research clearly shows that when target sources are spatially separated from maskers, compared with target-masker being co-located, children as young as 2–3 years old demonstrate improved speech understanding. This effect is known as spatial release from masking (SRM). Generally, studies have used free-field or dichotic listening; hence, the contributions of head shadow, loudness summation, and binaural unmasking to SRM are unknown in children. This study aimed to quantify these factors in virtual auditory space. By varying the target-masker spatial configurations (co-located versus separated) and ear conditions (monaural versus binaural), speech understanding benefit was defined as improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio to achieve an accuracy of 50%. Results from 29 children with normal hearing (6–15 years old) show that head shadow cues are dominant in providing benefit, followed by binaural unmasking. Loudness summation, through increased intensity by listening with both ears, provided little to no benefit. No age effects were found. Results also suggest a re-balancing between cues depending on listening strategies adopted by children. For example, children who relied more on binaural unmasking received less benefit for speech understanding from head shadow. [Work supported by NIH-NIDCD.]

Influence of suppression on restoration of spectral loudness summation in listeners with hearing loss.

Loudness depends on both the intensity and spectrum of a sound. Listeners with normal hearing perceive a broadband sound as being louder than an equal-level narrowband sound because loudness grows nonlinearly with level and is then summed across frequency bands. This difference in loudness as a function of bandwidth is reduced in listeners with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Suppression, the reduction in the cochlear response to one sound by the simultaneous presentation of another sound, is also reduced in listeners with SNHL. Hearing-aid gain that is based on loudness measurements with pure tones may fail to restore normal loudness growth for broadband sounds. This study investigated whether hearing-aid amplification that mimics suppression can improve loudness summation for listeners with SNHL. Estimates of loudness summation were obtained using measurements of categorical loudness scaling (CLS). Stimuli were bandpass-filtered noises centered at 2 kHz with bandwidths in the range of 0.1-6.4 kHz. Gain was selected to restore normal loudness based on CLS measurements with pure tones. Gain that accounts for both compression and suppression resulted in better restoration of loudness summation, compared to compression alone. However, restoration was imperfect, suggesting that additional refinements to the signal processing and gain-prescription algorithms are needed.

Potential Consequences of Spectral and Binaural Loudness Summation for Bilateral Hearing Aid Fitting.

Aversiveness of loud sounds is a frequent complaint by hearing aid users, especially when fitted bilaterally. This study investigates whether loudness summation can be held responsible for this finding. Two aspects of loudness summation should be taken into account: spectral loudness summation for broadband signals and binaural loudness summation for signals that are presented binaurally. In this study, the effect of different symmetrical hearing losses was studied. Measurements were obtained with the widely used technique of Adaptive Categorical Loudness Scaling. For large bandwidths, spectral loudness summation for hearing-impaired listeners was found to be greater than that for normal-hearing listeners, both for monaurally and binaurally presented signals. For binaural loudness summation, the effect of hearing loss was not significant. In all cases, individual differences were substantial.

Bilateral versus unilateral hearing aids for bilateral hearing impairment in adults.

Acquired hearing loss is common and its incidence increases markedly with age. In most people, 'age-related' hearing loss is sensorineural (due to the loss of cochlear hair cells) and bilateral, affecting both ears to the same degree. Hearing loss categorised as mild, moderate or severe is primarily managed with hearing aids. People with bilateral hearing loss may be offered one aid, fitted to one specific ear, or two aids fitted to both ears. There is uncertainty about the relative benefits to people with hearing loss of these different strategies. To assess the effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aids in adults with a bilateral hearing impairment. The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Register of Studies Online; PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 8 June 2017. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the fitting of two versus one ear-level acoustic hearing aids in adults (over 18 years) with a bilateral hearing impairment, both ears being eligible for hearing aids. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were patient preference for bilateral or unilateral aids, hearing-specific health-related quality of life and adverse effects (pain or discomfort in the ear, initiation or exacerbation of middle or outer ear infection). Secondary outcomes included: usage of hearing aids (as measured by, for example, data logging or battery consumption), generic health-related quality of life, listening ability and audiometric benefit measured as binaural loudness summation. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. We included four cross-over RCTs with a total of 209 participants, ranging in age from 23 to 85 and with a preponderance of men. All the studies allowed the use of hearing aids for a total period of at least eight weeks before questions on preference were asked. All studies recruited patients with bilateral hearing loss but there was considerable variation in the types and degree of sensorineural hearing loss that the participants were experiencing.Three of the studies were published before the mid-1990s whereas the fourth study was published in 2011. Therefore, only the most recent study used hearing aids incorporating technology comparable to that currently readily available in high-income settings. Of the four studies, two were conducted in the UK in National Health Service (NHS - public sector) patients: one recruited patients from primary care with hearing loss detected by a screening programme whereas the other recruited patients who had been referred by their primary care practitioner to an otolaryngology department for hearing aids. The other two studies were conducted in the United States: one study recruited only military personnel or veterans with noise-induced hearing loss whereas about half of the participants in the other study were veterans.Only one primary outcome (patient preference) was reported in all studies. The percentage of patients who preferred bilateral hearing aids varied between studies: this was 54% (51 out of 94 participants), 39% (22 out of 56), 55% (16 out of 29) and 77% (23 out of 30), respectively. We have not combined the data from these four studies. The evidence for this outcome is of very low quality.The other outcomes of interest were not reported in the included studies. This review identified only four studies comparing the use of one hearing aid with two. The studies were small and included participants of widely varying ages. There was also considerable variation in the types and degree of sensorineural hearing loss that the participants were experiencing.For the most part, the types of hearing aid evaluated would now be regarded, in high-income settings, as 'old technology', with only one study looking at 'modern' digital aids. However, the relevance of this is uncertain, as this review did not evaluate the differences in outcomes between the different types of technology.We were unable to pool data from the four studies and the very low quality of the evidence leads us to conclude that we do not know if people with hearing loss have a preference for one aid or two. Similarly, we do not know if hearing-specific health-related quality of life, or any of our other outcomes, are better with bilateral or unilateral aids.

Loudness summation of equal loud narrowband signals in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

Objective: Loudness perception of binaural broadband signals, e.g. speech shaped noise, shows large individual differences using frequency-dependent amplification which was adjusted to restore the loudness perception of monaural narrowband signals in hearing-impaired (HI) listeners. To better understand and quantify this highly individual effect, loudness perception of broadband stimuli consisting of a number of spectrally separated narrowband components which where individually adjusted to equal loudness is of interest. Design: Based on categorical loudness scaling, the loudness of an equal categorical loudness noise (ECLN) consisting of six third-octave noises was assessed. For loudness categories “medium” und “very loud” the required narrowband loudness was analysed. Study sample: Nine normal-hearing (NH) and ten HI listeners. Results: HI listeners showed lower narrowband loudness values compared to NH listeners, indicating an increased spectral loudness summation. More than 50% of the HI listeners showed higher binaural spectral loudness summation compared to NH listeners. The amount of binaural spectral loudness summation was highly correlated (r2 = 0.92) with the loudness level at “very loud” of aided speech shaped noise. Conclusions: The suggested ECLN measurement is suited to assess individual (binaural) broadband loudness in aided conditions, providing valuable information for hearing-aid fitting.

Loudness Functions and Binaural Loudness Summation in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users

AbstractLoudness functions and binaural loudness summation was investigated in acoustically stimulated bilaterally implanted cochlear implant users. The study was aimed at evaluating growth of loudness functions and binaural loudness summation in cochlear implant subjects as a function of stimulus presentation level at different frequencies. Loudness was assessed using a rating procedure on a scale of 0 to 100. Three experimental conditions were tested: monaural right, monaural left and binaural, each with bands of noise with center frequencies of 0.25, 1, and 4 kHz. Fifteen implanted and five normal-hearing subjects (control group) participated in the experiments. Results demonstrated large variability in the slopes of the loudness functions and the presence of loudness summation in bilateral cochlear implant users, with large individual differences among subjects.

Simple reaction time for broadband sounds compared to pure tones

Although many studies have explored the relation between reaction time (RT) and loudness, including effects of intensity, frequency, and binaural summation, comparable work on spectral summation is rare. However, most real-world sounds are not pure tones and typically have bandwidths covering several critical bands. Since comparing to a 1-kHz pure tone, the reference tone, is important for loudness measurement and standardization, the present work focuses on comparing RTs for broadband noise to those for 1-kHz pure tones in three experiments using different spectral and binaural configurations. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 yield good quantitative agreement with spectral loudness summation models for moderate and high sound pressure levels, measured using both pink noise covering almost the entire hearing range and bandpass-filtered pink noise with different center frequencies. However, at lower levels, the RT measurements yield an interaction of level and bandwidth, which is not in line with loudness scaling data. In Experiment 3, which investigated the binaural summation of broadband sounds, the binaural gain for white noise was determined to be 9 dB, which is somewhat larger than what had been found in previous RT measurements using 1-kHz pure tones.

Mid-bandwidth loudness depression in hearing-impaired listeners.

The loudness of a bandpass-filtered noise depends on its bandwidth. For bandwidths larger than a critical bandwidth, loudness increases as the bandwidth increases, an effect commonly referred to as spectral loudness summation. For bandwidths smaller than the critical bandwidth, it was shown recently for normal-hearing listeners that loudness decreases as the bandwidth increases. This study investigated if listeners with a hearing impairment of primarily cochlear origin also showed this effect. Levels at equal loudness between a 1500-Hz pure-tone reference and noise-band targets centered at 1500 Hz were measured for bandwidths in the range from 15 to 1620 Hz. The reference level was adjusted individually on the basis of the audiogram. The average level difference at equal loudness increased from 0 dB at 15 Hz up to a maximum of about 4 dB at 810 Hz. Thus, the mid-bandwidth loudness depression is also observed for hearing-impaired listeners.

Spectral and binaural loudness summation for hearing-impaired listeners

Sensorineural hearing loss typically results in a steepened loudness function and a reduced dynamic range from elevated thresholds to uncomfortably loud levels for narrowband and broadband signals. Restoring narrowband loudness perception for hearing-impaired (HI) listeners can lead to overly loud perception of broadband signals and it is unclear how binaural presentation affects loudness perception in this case. Here, loudness perception quantified by categorical loudness scaling for nine normal-hearing (NH) and ten HI listeners was compared for signals with different bandwidth and different spectral shape in monaural and in binaural conditions. For the HI listeners, frequency- and level-dependent amplification was used to match the narrowband monaural loudness functions of the NH listeners. The average loudness functions for NH and HI listeners showed good agreement for monaural broadband signals. However, HI listeners showed substantially greater loudness for binaural broadband signals than NH listeners: on average a 14.1 dB lower level was required to reach “very loud” (range 30.8 to −3.7 dB). Overall, with narrowband loudness compensation, a given binaural loudness for broadband signals above “medium loud” was reached at systematically lower levels for HI than for NH listeners. Such increased binaural loudness summation was not found for loudness categories below “medium loud” or for narrowband signals. Large individual variations in the increased loudness summation were observed and could not be explained by the audiogram or the narrowband loudness functions.

Binaural Loudness Constancy.

In binaural loudness summation, diotic presentation of a sound usually produces greater loudness than monaural presentation. However, experiments using loudspeaker presentation with and without earplugs find that magnitude estimates of loudness are little altered by the earplug, suggesting a form of loudness constancy. We explored the significance of controlling stimulation of the second ear using meatal occlusion as opposed to the deactivation of one earphone. We measured the point of subjective loudness equality (PSLE) for monaural vs. binaural presentation using an adaptive technique for both speech and noise. These stimuli were presented in a reverberant room over a loudspeaker to the right of the listener, or over lightweight headphones. Using the headphones, stimuli were either presented dry, or matched to those of the loudspeaker by convolution with impulse responses measured from the loudspeaker to the listener position, using an acoustic manikin. The headphone response was also compensated. Using the loudspeaker, monaural presentation was achieved by instructing the listener to block the left ear with a finger. Near perfect binaural loudness constancy was observed using loudspeaker presentation, while there was a summation effect of 3-6 dB for both headphone conditions. However, only partial constancy was observed when meatal occlusion was simulated. These results suggest that there may be contributions to binaural loudness constancy from residual low frequencies at the occluded ear as well as a cognitive element, which is activated by the knowledge that one ear is occluded.

Differences between ANSI S3.4-2007 and the proposed ISO532-2

The ANSI standard for the calculation of loudness (ANSI S3.4-2007) is based on the model developed by Moore, Glasberg and co-workers, and uses the assumption that a diotic sound is twice as loud as that same sound presented monaurally. However, recent data suggest that loudness summation across ears is less than assumed in the ANSI standard. This was taken into account in the revised loudness model of Moore and Glasberg [J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 121, 1604–1612, 2007] using the concept of “binaural inhibition”, whereby the signal at one ear inhibits the internal response to a signal at the other ear. This model predicts that a diotic sound is 1.5 times as loud as that same sound presented monaurally, and it forms the basis for the proposed ISO532-2 standard. The revised model also gives reasonably accurate predictions of loudness in cases where the sounds differ across the two ears, for example, sounds recorded via a dummy head. An extension of the model to deal with time-varying sounds has been shown to give accurate predictions of loudness for a variety of technical and musical sounds. It is proposed that the revised and extended model be used as the basis for a new ANSI standard.

Some factors affecting loudness measurement and prediction

The current ANSI standard (ANSI S3.4, 2007) estimates the loudness of sustained sound, but many naturally occurring sounds have time-varying levels. Glasberg and Moore (2002) published a model for the prediction of time-varying sounds and this aspect should be considered as part of a revision to the ANSI standard. To assess the predictions of the dynamic model, loudness magnitude estimation functions were obtained for 24 listeners using pure tones (0.5 and 1.0 kHz), vowels, spondees, and speech-shaped noise (SSN) presented at levels from 40 to 90 dB SPL. Inferred equal-loudness levels from the fitted loudness functions were compared to the model predictions. The loudness model was qualitatively consistent with the behavioral data. The model predicted SSN to be louder than vowels and spondees which would be louder than tones; however, the model over-predicted the loudness differences. Possible explanations for the over-prediction include biases in loudness judgments, cognitive factors regarding learned expectations for loudness, assumptions regarding the free-field-to-headphone transfer function, and the model’s over-prediction of spectral, loudness summation, a result found recently (Schlittenlacher et al., 2014) for the ANSI standard and DIN 45631.