Across- and Within-Channel Gap Detection Thresholds Yielded by Two Different Test Applications
Across- and Within-Channel Gap Detection Thresholds Yielded by Two Different Test Applications
复制标题
DOI：
10.3766/jaaa.18099
复制
发表时间：
2020-02-01
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Tanniru, Kishore
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alhaidary, Abdulsalam;Tanniru, Kishore
背景：听觉加工障碍的个体在听觉信号的时间加工方面表现出一些缺陷。间隙检测测量通常被用来评估不同听力任务的时间加工技能。目的：本研究的目的是通过使用两种计算机应用程序--时间分辨率自适应测试(ATTR)和心理计算机应用程序--来比较跨通道(AC)和通道内(WC)任务中的间隙检测阈值(GDT)。研究设计：受试者内研究设计。研究样本：21名听力正常的年轻人参加研究。数据收集和分析：每个受试者的间隙检测操作使用ATTR和心理控制应用程序的窄带噪声刺激来评估。结果：AC任务的GDT显著低于AC任务，AC任务的GDT低于AC任务，而WC任务的GDT低于AC任务。此外，WC任务的GDT值在Attr中低于心理程序，而AC任务的Gdt值在Attr中高于心理程序。结论：从Attr和emocon应用程序获得的Gdt值的差异可能归因于两种程序刺激的细微光谱差异。本研究还表明，由于不同软件产生的刺激的内在差异，可能需要根据评估工具建立GDT的标准值，然后才能得出关于临床情况的结论。
Background: Individuals with auditory processing disorders show some deficits with the temporal processing of auditory signals. Gap detection measurements are commonly used to assess temporal processing skills across different listening tasks.Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the gap detection thresholds (GDTs) in across-channel (AC) and within-channel (WC) tasks by using two computer applications-Adaptive Tests of Temporal Resolution (ATTR) and Psycon.Research Design: A within-subject study design.Study Sample: Twenty-one young adults with normal hearing participated in the study.Data Collection and Analysis: Each participant's gap detection performance was assessed using the narrowband noise stimuli of the ATTR and Psycon applications. Four conditions were administered with 2 kHz as the leading frequency marker before the gap and 1 kHz as the trailing frequency marker after the gap for AC tasks, and with 2 kHz as both the leading and trailing frequency markers for WC tasks.Results: The results showed lower GDTs for the WC tasks than the AC tasks. Also, the GDT values for the WC tasks were lower in the ATTR than Psycon; whereas the GDT values for the AC tasks were higher in the ATTR than Psycon.Conclusion: The differences noted in the obtained GDT values from the ATTR and Psycon applications may be attributed to subtle spectral differences in the stimuli of the two programs. The present study also indicates that because of the inherent differences in the stimuli generated by the different software, the normative values for GDTs may need to be established according to evaluation tools before drawing conclusions about clinical conditions.