Maximum-Likelihood Yes-No Procedure for Gap Detection: Effect of Track Length

Abstract

A maximum-likelihood yes-no procedure was used to measure minimum detectable gaps (MDGs) at 1 and 4 kHz using two track lengths (15 and 30 trials). Results from 11 normal listeners show no difference between MDGs for the two track lengths, and variability of the MDGs did not differ significantly for the track lengths. Results from simulations indicate that the variability of MDGs from real listeners is considerably larger than that imposed by the psychophysical procedure. Additional simulations show that random variability of listeners' response criterion is a compelling explanation for the excess variability. These findings indicate that changes in a listener's threshold over time impose a lower bound on the variability obtainable with a yes-no procedure. They imply that increasing the number of trials in a track, beyond the minimum number required to obtain a stable threshold estimate, offers little or no advantage for the test-retest reliability of a clinical threshold measurement.

Abbreviations: CF = center frequency, ERB = equivalent rectangular bands, MDG = minimum detectable gap, MML = method of maximum likelihood, SDT = signal detection theory

Key Words

Gap detection - method of maximum likelihood - narrowband noise - psychophysical procedure - test-retest reliability

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
28. Februar 2022

• REFERENCES

• American National Standards Institute. (1989). Specifications for Audiometers. (Vol. ANSI S3.6–1989). New York: ANSI.
• Buus S. (1997). Auditory masking. In: Crocker MJ, ed. Encyclopedia of Acoustics. Vol. 3. New York: Wiley, 1427–1445.
• Buus S, Florentine M. (1985). Gap detection in normal and impaired listeners: the effect of level and frequency. In: Michelsen A, ed. Time Resolution of Auditory Systems. London: Springer, 159–179.
• Buus S, Florentine M, Mason CR. (1986). Psychoacoustical tuning curves and absolute thresholds at high frequencies. In: Moore BCJ, Patterson RD, eds. Auditory Frequency Selectivity. New York: Plenum, 344–350.
• Fitzgibbons PJ. (1983). Temporal gap detection in noise as a function of frequency, bandwidth and level. J Acoust Soc Am 74: 67–72.
• Fitzgibbons PJ, Gordon-Salant S. (1987). Temporal gap resolution in listeners with high frequency sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 81:133–137.
• Florentine M, Buus S. (1983). Temporal resolution as a function of level and frequency. Proc 11th Int Congr Acoust 3:103–106.
• Florentine M, Buus S. (2000, February). Temporalresolution deficits can vary with frequency in cochlear hearing losses. Presented at the Mid-Winter Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, St. Petersburg, FL.
• Florentine M, Buus S, Geng W. (1999). Psychometric functions for gap detection in a yes-no procedure. J Acoust Soc Am 106:3512–3520.
• Florentine M, Buus S, Geng W. (2000). Toward a clinical procedure for narrowband gap detection I: a psychophysical procedure. Audiology 39: 161–167.
• Florentine M, Buus S, Hellman RP. (1997). A model of loudness summation applied to high-frequency hearing loss. In: Jesteadt W, ed. Modeling Sensorineural Hearing Loss. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 187–198.
• Florentine M, HoutsmaAJM. (1983). Tuning curves and pitch matches in a listener with a unilateral, lowfrequency hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 73: 961–965.
• Formby C, Sherlock LP, Green DM. (1996). Evaluation of a maximum-likelihood procedure for measuring puretone thresholds under computer control. J Am Acad Audiol 7:125–129.
• Green DM. (1993). A maximum-likelihood procedure for estimating thresholds in a yes-no task. J Acoust Soc Am 93:2096–2105.
• Green DM, Forrest TG. (1989). Temporal gaps in noise and sinusoids. J Acoust Soc Am 86: 961–970.
• Green DM, Swets JA. (1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York: Wiley. Gu X, Green DM. (1994). Further studies of a maximumlikelihood yes-no procedure. J Acoust Soc Am 96: 93–101.
• Hellman RE (1994). Relation between the growth of loudness and high-frequency excitation. J Acoust Soc Am 96:2655–2663.
• Hogan CA, Turner CW (1998). High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 104:432–441.
• Leek MR, Dubno J, He N-J, Ahlstrom JB. (2000). Experience with a yes-no single interval maximumlikelihood procedure. J Acoust Soc Am 107:2674–2684.
• Macmillan NA, Creelman CD. (1991). Detection Theory: A User's Guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Moore BCJ, Huss M, Vickers DA, Glasberg BR, Alcantara JI. (2000). A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol 34:204–225.
• Shailer MJ, Moore BCJ. (1983). Gap detection as a function of frequency, bandwidth and level. J Acoust Soc Am 74:467–473.
• Snell KB, Frisina DR. (2000). Relationships among agerelated differences in gap detection and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 107: 1615–1626.
• Thornton AR, Abbas PJ. (1980). Low-frequency hearing loss: perception of filtered speech, psychophysical tuning curves, and masking. J Acoust Soc Am 67:638–643.
• Turner CW, Burns EM, Nelson DA. (1983). Pure tone pitch perception and low-frequency hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 73:966–975.
• Turner CW Cummings KJ. (1999). Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing. Am J Audiol 8:47–56.
• Villchur E. (1973). Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptive deafness. J Acoust Soc Am 53:1646–1657.