Literature DB >> 32237812

Yes/no and two-interval forced-choice tasks with listener-based vs observer-based responses.

Lori J Leibold1, Emily Buss2.   

Abstract

Observer-based procedures are used to assess auditory behavior in infants, often incorporating adaptive tracking algorithms. These procedures are reliable, but effects of modifications made to accommodate infant testing are not fully understood. One modification is that observation intervals are undefined for the listener, introducing signal-temporal uncertainty and increasing the likelihood that listener response bias will influence estimates of performance. The effect of these factors was evaluated by comparing threshold estimates obtained from adults using two tasks: (1) single-interval, yes/no and (2) two-interval, forced-choice. Detection thresholds were estimated adaptively for a 1000-Hz FM tone in quiet and for a word presented in two-talker speech masking. Trials were initiated and judged by the observer (observer-based) or the listener (listener-based). Thus, listening intervals were temporally uncertain in observer-based procedures and temporally defined in listener-based procedures. Thresholds were higher for observer-based relative to corresponding listener-based procedures. The magnitude of this difference was similar across the yes/no and two-interval tasks, and was larger for masked word detection than tone detection in quiet. Listeners adopted a conservative criterion when tested using the observer-based, yes/no procedure, but modeling results suggest that signal-temporal uncertainty accounts for the largest portion of the threshold difference between observer-based and listener-based procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32237812      PMCID: PMC7067614          DOI: 10.1121/10.0000894

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  23 in total

1.  Notched-noise measures of frequency selectivity in adults and children using fixed-masker-level and fixed-signal-level presentation.

Authors:  J W Hall; J H Grose
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1991-06

2.  Detectability of auditory signals presented without defined observation intervals.

Authors:  C S Watson; T L Nichols
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  A simple single-interval adaptive procedure for estimating thresholds in normal and impaired listeners.

Authors:  Wendy Lecluyse; Ray Meddis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research.

Authors:  Terry K Koo; Mae Y Li
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-03-31

5.  Psychometric functions for children's detection of tones in noise.

Authors:  P Allen; F Wightman
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1994-02

6.  Detection of temporally uncertain signals.

Authors:  D M Green; D L Weber
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1980-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Masked Speech Perception Thresholds in Infants, Children, and Adults.

Authors:  Lori J Leibold; Angela Yarnell Bonino; Emily Buss
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Preliminary observations on the development of auditory sensitivity in infants with Down syndrome.

Authors:  L A Werner; L R Mancl; R C Folsom
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Decision criteria for pure-tone detection used by two age groups of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  L Marshall
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1991-03

Review 10.  Variations in the slope of the psychometric functions for speech intelligibility: a systematic survey.

Authors:  Alexandra MacPherson; Michael A Akeroyd
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 3.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.