Abstract
Using the Entropy Equation from their “Entropy Theory of Perception”, Norwich and Wong modelled loudness L versus intensity I using four unknowns. Norwich and Wong then quantified the Weber fraction by taking the differential with respect to intensity, and then replacing differentials by deltas. Subsequent re-defining of terms produced a Weber fraction equation resembling that of the late Professor Riesz. Dr. Riesz’s own equation had three parameters, which Norwich and Wong (using re-defined terms) substituted into their equation for L. They then equated the theoretical loudnesses of a comparison tone and a reference tone, generating theoretical equal-loudness contours – a previously unaccomplished feat in the literature – after also replacing one of Riesz’s parameters, initially identified with an exponent of the Entropy Equation, by Stevens’ exponent “x”. But the Norwich and Wong derivation contains fatal flaws. First, the loudness equation L cannot deal with the respective intensity limits of threshold intensity and zero intensity. Then, there are unproven relations between various parameters. To examine those relations, the present author inferred 37 values of each of x, n, and a third parameter, by the only method available: curvefitting of the Entropy Equation and of Stevens’ Law to 37 loudness-growth plots. Results clearly show that the third parameter is not constant with tone frequency, but that it does vary with maximum loudness, in a relation not noted by Norwich and Wong. And n does not equal x. In sum, Norwich and Wong fail to derive equal-loudness contours. Their mistakes exemplify what happens in mathematical biology under inappropriate limits and untested assumptions.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
14.1 Introduction
What is a loudness contour? It is a plotted curve, which is obtained for a given person by having that research subject adjust the intensity of a “comparison” tone of a given waveform frequency until it seems as loud as a “reference” tone of a constant intensity and constant frequency. This method has been used in psychology laboratories for decades. For each different reference-tone intensity, a different loudness contour ensues.
Kenneth Howard (Kenny) Norwich and Willy Wong claim to derive equal-loudness contours mathematically, from theoretical first-principles [1, 2]. This is the only occurrence of such a feat, to the present author’s knowledge. Further, full comprehension of what Norwich and Wong did requires reading two papers [1, 2], of which the more recent one [1] gives a backward derivation of what appears in the older one [2]. Indeed, further reading proves to be necessary [3–6]. All of the needed papers are examined here, to provide a synopsis that is not found in the literature. The synopsis reveals wrong limits and wrong assumptions underlying the Norwich and Wong derivations.
14.2 Norwich and Wong: A Loudness Equation
Norwich and Wong [1] introduce an “Entropy Equation”, in which loudness is denoted L. Acoustical stimulus intensity, in units of power, is denoted I. Norwich and Wong [1], Eq. (14.11) write
Investigation reveals that this is also Eq. (14.9) of [2], but that has k instead of k/2 (i.e., the ½ was presumably absorbed into “k”). “k” appears in earlier Norwich papers, as “a proportionality constant” [3], its value “determined by the arbitrary scale units of the experimenter” ([4], p. 269). Norwich and Wong assume that k is independent of intensity and frequency. The term Ith in Eq. (14.1) is the “threshold intensity”. Norwich and Wong ([1], p. 931) now name Lth, “the loudness threshold” (actually the threshold loudness); from Eq. (14.1),
They then state that [1], Eq. (14.12)
(This equation will be explored soon.) Altogether, from Eqs. (14.1) and (14.2) and L = L–Lth in Eq. (14.3),
This appears in [1] as Eq. (14.13), with the γ misprinted as “y”. Equation (14.4) also appears in [2], as Eq. (14.10) but with k instead of k/2.
14.3 Norwich and Wong: The “Weber Fraction”
Norwich and Wong [1] now differentiate Eq. (14.4). They get [1], Eq. (14.14)
which does not depend on which of Eq. (14.1) or Eq. (14.4) is used for loudness. Norwich and Wong [1] then reorder Eq. (14.5) to obtain dI/I. They then replaced dL by ΔL, the difference limen (i.e., the subjectively just-noticeable difference) in loudness. Likewise, they replace dI by the intensity change corresponding to ΔL, namely, ΔI ([1], p. 932). Altogether,
which they name the Weber fraction [1], Eq. (15).
The empirical values of the Weber fraction had already been studied by many psychologists. Early-on, there was Riesz [7]. He mentioned an equation that “can be made to represent ΔE/E [his notation for ΔI/I] as a function of intensity at any frequency”, by adjusting three equation parameters ([7], p. 873), each parameter itself being an empirical equation of frequency. Norwich and Wong [1] transformed Eq. (14.6) into the empirical equation used by Riesz [7], first by assuming (after Fechner [8]) that ΔL is constant with intensity, and then by defining two new positive quantities, S∞ and S0 –S∞:
Hence [1], Eq. (22)
Altogether, then,
where ΔI/I > 0. Equation (14.8) has the same general form as Eq. (14.2) of Riesz [7]. Equation (14.8) is also Eq. (16) of [1] and Eq. (14.1) of [2].
14.4 Norwich and Wong: Derivation of Equal-Loudness Contours
Norwich and Wong [1] then proceed to derive equal-loudness contours. First is the theoretical intensity of the comparison tone, as a function of its frequency, found by equating comparison-tone loudness to that of a constant-intensity 1 kHz reference tone. With the parameters of the reference tone denoted by ^ (caret),
(in [1] as Eq. (37)). Substituting appropriate terms from Eq. (14.4) gives
which is Eq. (14.12) of [2], but with k there instead of k/2, and with “prime” in place of “caret”, and with a script I in place of caret-I. Equation (14.10) can be re-arranged to solve for I/Ith; ten times its logarithm to base 10 gives the intensity of the matching comparison tone in decibels sensation level (dB SL):
It transpires that Eq. (14.13) of [2] is the term within the largest brackets here, but with k instead of k/2, and with “prime” instead of “caret”, and with a script I in place of caret-I.
In Norwich and Wong [1], the frequency for the ^ parameters is taken to be 1 kHz. \( \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\text{I}}_{\text{th}} \) is taken from Wegel [9]. S0 and S∞ are evaluated from Riesz [7], allowing values for γ Eq. (14.7c). k is assumed to be independent of frequency and intensity ([1], p. 931). k and \( \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\text{k}} \) are hence assumed equal; \( {{\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\text{k}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\text{k}}} {\text{k}}}} \right. \kern-0pt} {\text{k}}} \) therefore disappears from Eq. (14.11).
The reference tone for making loudness contours is here 1 kHz. Empirically, each intensity of the 1 kHz tone would have an associated plot of the points {tone frequency, tone sensation level} that subjectively match the loudness of the 1 kHz reference tone. Equation (14.11) gives the respective theoretical equal-loudness contours; they appear in Fig. 14.5 of Norwich and Wong [1] and in Fig. 14.4 of Wong and Norwich [2]. They are bowl-shaped, being lowest in-between the lowest and highest waveform frequencies.
Norwich and Wong note elsewhere [5] that Fletcher and Munson [10] had produced equal-loudness contours, likewise using an SL scale. Unlike the theoretical curves of Norwich and Wong [1] and of Wong and Norwich [2], however, the Fletcher and Munson [10] contours increase in-between the lowest and highest waveform frequencies, forming hill-shaped plots. Norwich and Wong [1] hence replaced Riesz’s “n” by an equation for the Stevens exponent as a function of frequency. They employed ([1], p. 935) “a function similar to the one suggested by Marks” [11]. Their theoretical equal-loudness contours were now hill-shaped like those of Fletcher and Munson [10].
14.5 Examining Norwich and Wong (1): The Loudness Equation at the Loudness Threshold
Let us carefully scrutinize what Norwich and Wong [1] did. According to them, Eq. (14.4) above derives from Eq. (14.1) above. That is, loudness allegedly obeys both Eqs. (14.1) and (14.4). But this is not possible. First, note that the upper line of Eq. (14.3) should read L ≠ L–Lth, not L = L–Lth. Now consider loudness limits. As I → Ith from I > Ith, L → Lth (following Eq. (14.1)); but according to Eq. (14.4), L → 0. Thus, we have L = 0 and L = Lth at the same intensity, Ith. Note also that as I → 0 from I > 0, then after Eq. (14.1), L → 0; but after Eq. (14.4), L → (–k/2)ln(1 + γ), a negative loudness (k, γ > 0). Of course, a negative loudness is an impossibility.
14.6 Examining Norwich and Wong (2): The Constancy of K
Crucially, Norwich and Wong [1] assume that the parameter k is independent of intensity and frequency. But Norwich and his co-authors never test that assumption, even up to the present day. Therefore, it was tested here, as follows. k can only be obtained by fitting Eq. (14.1) or Eq. (14.4) to empirical plots showing loudness growth with intensity. To do so, first the term γ/I nth in Eq. (14.1) was replaced by a symbol γ′. Equation (14.1) was then fitted to thirty-seven loudness-intensity plots from the peer-reviewed experimental literature. Following that literature, Eq. (14.1) was put in logarithmic form in {ln I, ln L} coordinates, before fitting to logarithms of loudnesses.
Figure 14.1 shows the fitted values of k, versus the respective tone frequency, or for white noise. The empirical loudness-growths were taken from: [12], white noise (geometric means of magnitude estimates: series 1–3); [13], 1 kHz tone (Figs. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10); [14], 0.1 kHz tone (Fig. 14.2, crosses; Fig. 14.2, circles), 0.250 kHz tone (Fig. 14.3, geometric means of circles); [15], 1 kHz tone (subjects # 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13); [16], 1 kHz tone (curves 1–7); [17], 0.550 kHz tone (subject AWS), 0.765 kHz tone (subjects EWB, RSM); [18], white noise (Fig. 14.2: binaural, magnitude production; binaural, magnitude estimation; monaural, magnitude production; monaural, magnitude estimation); [19], 1 kHz tone (Fig. 14.1, circles; Fig. 14.1, squares), white noise (Fig. 14.1, circles and crosses); [20], binaural 1 kHz tone (cross-modality-matching, high range day 2; low range day 2).
Regarding Fig. 14.1: k is not constant. For 1 kHz tones and for white noise, multiple k values are evident. Figure 14.2 shows k versus the maximum loudness available from each empirical loudness-growth plot (i.e., the loudness at the highest respective applied stimulus intensity). A power function, converted to logarithmic form (as per the literature), was fitted using sum-of-squares-of-residuals. The latter favors higher loudnesses, hence the data points were weighted by the square root of the absolute value of each loudness. From this, k = 0.173·L 1.41max . Norwich and co-authors never mention such a relation. Regardless, k is not constant with Lmax. Hence, k cannot generally be constant, although Norwich and Wong [1] think otherwise.
14.7 Examining Norwich and Wong (3): Entropy Exponent, Stevens Exponent
Recall that Norwich and Wong [1] replace n, the exponent of Eq. (14.1) and of Eq. (14.4), with x, the exponent of Stevens’ power law: they assume that n = x. But, just as for k, Norwich and his co-authors never test that assumption, even up to the present day. Values of n arise from the same curvefitting described just above. Therefore, there is just one parameter remaining to be quantified, namely x. It is obtained through the same procedures described above, but with L = aIx as the fitted equation. Having thereby obtained values of n and of x, we may examine the notion that n = x. Figure 14.3 shows n versus x.
A straight line fitted to the data points gives n = 0.123 + 1.215x. The reasons for the numbers 0.123 and 1.215 are not known. Nonetheless, n does not equal x, contrary to Norwich and Wong [1].
To thoroughly establish any actual relation between n and x, further analysis was done, as follows. Norwich’s “Entropy Theory” (e.g., [6]) specifies that the maximum transmitted information during the perception of a stimulus, called It, max units of information, is related to maximum loudness Lmax and minimum loudness Lmin as
k in the denominator is the same k as investigated above. Empirically Lmax ≫Lmin, allowing Lmin to be ignored. The fitting of the Entropy equation to loudness growth can be stopped for a value of k yielding It, max = 2.5 bits/stimulus, which is the average value found in the literature [6]. Figure 14.4 shows the relation of n to x in such circumstances. A line fitted to the data points in the same manner described above is n = 0.217 + 1.013x. The reasons for the values 0.217 and 1.013 are unknown. Again, however, n does not equal x, contrary to Norwich and Wong [1]. The difference may seem trivial, but it is well-known that empirical values of x can be as low as 0.3 (e.g., [11]), in which case the difference between n and x is not, in fact, trivial.
14.8 Examining Norwich and Wong (4): Frequency-Dependence of the Exponent
Recall from above that Norwich and Wong ([1], p. 935) employed “a function similar to the one suggested by Marks” [11] to make their theoretical equal-loudness contours hill-shaped like those of Fletcher and Munson [10]. The respective equation of Marks [11] describes the Stevens exponent x as a function of frequency f (in Hertz), and is
which applies “over low frequencies (f) and not too high sound pressure levels” ([11], p. 74). Compare Eq. (14.13) to the Norwich and Wong equation “similar to the one suggested by Marks” [1], Eq. (40), but with no restrictions of sound pressure level or frequency:
Equations (14.13) and (14.14) are not the same. Indeed, we do not know the units of the constants in Eqs. (14.13) and (14.14), hence we do not even whether the x’s represented by the two equations even have the same units! Figure 14.5 shows the curves generated by Eqs. (14.13) and (14.14). The curves clearly differ, and in fact, they intersect only once.
14.9 Conclusions
Norwich and Wong [1] present a backwards derivation of arguments made in Wong and Norwich [2]. Wrong arguments in one paper prove to be wrong in the other. In particular, Norwich and Wong [1] make several assumptions which prove to be unjustified. All of this is somewhat surprising, given that Norwich and Wong [1] identify several prominent tenured professors (Lawrence Marks, Lester Krueger, Lawrence Ward) as reviewers of their paper. It is even more alarming that Wong and Norwich [2] was reviewed by a theorist, William Hellman.
The present conclusions reveal that embarrassing and needless errors occur through the embarrassing and needless errors of inappropriate limits, unjustified assumptions, and quantities having incompatible units. Indeed, Norwich’s entire Entropy Theory is riddled with mistakes (see [21–30]). Professor Norwich evidently tolerates a culture of errors in his laboratory; papers authored independently by his co-authors may prove similarly faulty.
This paper follows upon a contribution [31] to WCECS 2015 (San Francisco, USA).
References
Norwich KH, Wong W (1997) Unification of psychophysical phenomena: the complete form of Fechner’s law. Percept Psychophys 59:929–940
Wong W, Norwich KH (1995) Obtaining equal loudness contours from Weber fractions. J Acoust Soc Am 97:3761–3767
Norwich KH (1979) The information content of a steady sensory stimulus, in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and 5th International Conference on Medical Physics, Jerusalem, Israel, section 19.2
Norwich KH (1984) The psychophysics of taste from the entropy of the stimulus. Percept Psychophys 35:269–278
Norwich KH, Wong W (1995) A universal model of single-unit sensory receptor action. Math Biosci 125:83–108
Norwich KH (1981) The magical number seven: making a ‘bit’ of ‘sense’. Percept Psychophys 29:409–422
Riesz RR (1928) Differential intensity sensitivity of the ear for pure tones, Phys Rev Ser 2, 31, 867–875
Fechner GT (1866) Element der Psychophysik. Leipzig, Germany: Breitkopf und Hartel. (Translated by H.E. Adler, Elements of Psychophysics. New York, USA: Holt, 1966)
Wegel RL (1932) Physical data and physiology of excitation of the auditory nerve. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 41:740–779
Fletcher H, Munson WA (1933) Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation. J Acoust Soc Am 5:82–108
Marks LE (1974) Sensory processes: the new psychophysics. Academic, New York, USA
Eisler H (1962) Empirical test of a model relating magnitude and sensory scales. Scand J Psychol 3:88–96
Hellman RP, Zwislocki JJ (1963) Monaural loudness function at 1,000 cps and interaural summation. J Acoust Soc Am 35:856–865
Hellman RP, Zwislocki JJ (1968) Loudness determination at low sound frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 43:60–64
Luce RD, Mo SS (1965) Magnitude estimation of heaviness and loudness by individual subjects: a test of a probabilistic response theory. Br J Math Stat Psychol, part 2, 18, 159–174
McGill W (1960) The slope of the loudness function: a puzzle. In: Gulliksen H, Messick S (eds) Psychophysical Scaling: Theory and Applications. Wiley, New York, NY, USA, pp 67–81
Richardson LF, Ross JS (1930) Loudness and telephone current. J Gen Psychol 3:288–306
Scharf B, Fishken D (1970) Binaural summation of loudness: reconsidered. J Exp Psychol 86:374–379
Stevens SS (1956) The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes—loudness. Am J Psychol 69:1–25
Ward LM (1987) Remembrance of sounds past: memory and psychophysical scaling. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 13:216–227
Nizami L (2010) Fundamental flaws in the derivation of Stevens’ Law for taste within Norwich’s Entropy Theory of Perception. In: Korsunsky AM (ed) Current Themes In Engineering Science 2009: Selected Presentations at the World Congress on Engineering-2009 (AIP Conference Proceedings 1220). American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, USA, pp 150–164
Nizami L (2011) A warning to the human-factors engineer: false derivations of Riesz’s Weber fraction, Piéron’s Law, and others within Norwich et al.’s Entropy Theory of Perception. In: Schmidt M (ed) Advances in Computer Science and Engineering. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, pp 391–406
Nizami L (2009) A computational test of the information-theory based Entropy Theory of Perception: does it actually generate the Stevens and Weber-Fechner Laws of sensation?. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2009, WCE 2009, Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science. London, UK, pp 1853–1858
Nizami L (2011) Norwich’s Entropy Theory: how not to go from abstract to actual. Kybernetes 40:1102–1118
Nizami L (2009) Sensory systems as cybernetic systems that require awareness of alternatives to interact with the world: analysis of the brain-receptor loop in Norwich’s Entropy Theory of Perception, Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, San Antonio, TX, USA, pp 3477–3482
Nizami L (2009) A lesson in the limitations of applying cybernetics to sensory systems: hidden drawbacks in Norwich’s model of transmitted Shannon information. IIAS-Trans Syst Res Cybern (Int J Int Inst Adv Stud Syst Res Cybern) 9:1–9
Nizami L (2008) Is auditory intensity discrimination a comparison of entropy changes?. In: Proceedings of the 155th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, 5th Forum Acusticum of the EA, 9e Congrès Français d’Acoustique of the SFA, 2nd ASA-EAA Joint Conference, Paris, France, pp 5739–5744
Nizami L (2008) Does Norwich’s Entropy Theory of Perception avoid the use of mechanisms, as required of an information-theoretic model of auditory primary-afferent firing?. In: Proceedings of the 155th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, 5th Forum Acusticum of the EA, 9e Congrès Français d’Acoustique of the SFA, 2nd ASA-EAA Joint Conference, Paris, France, pp 5745–5750
Nizami L (2009) On the hazards of deriving sensory laws from first-order cybernetics: Norwich’s Entropy Theory of Perception does not derive the Weber fraction for audition. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (The 3rd International Symposium on Bio- and Medical Informatics and Cybernetics: BMIC 2009 of WMSCI 2009), Orlando, FL, USA, pp 235–241
Nizami L (2015) On mathematical biology without the biology: a refutation of K.H. Norwich’s Mystery of Loudness Adaptation and a physiology-based replacement. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2015, WCECS 2015. Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science. San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 561–569
Nizami L (2015) Mathematical biology under wrong limits and wrong assumptions: Norwich and Wong (the Entropy Theory) fail to derive equal-loudness contours. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2015, WCECS 2015. Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science. San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 546–551
Acknowledgment
My thanks to Claire S. Barnes PhD for her valuable insights.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Nizami, L. (2017). Wrong Limits and Wrong Assumptions: Kenny Norwich and Willy Wong Fail to Derive Equal-Loudness Contours. In: Ao, SI., Kim, H., Amouzegar, M. (eds) Transactions on Engineering Technologies. WCECS 2015. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2717-8_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2717-8_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2716-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2717-8
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)