Ear and hearing · 2008
Gap detection and ear of presentation: examination of disparate findings: re: Sininger Y.S., & de Bode, S. (2008). Asymmetry of temporal processing in listeners with normal hearing and unilaterally deaf subjects. Ear Hear 29, 228-238.
КомментарийПисьмо в редакциюПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Grose John H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this Letter is to address incongruent findings reported in two current papers concerning an ear advantage for gap detection. The methodology of one of the studies was closely replicated in order to determine whether those data were confounded by a floor effect. A novel methodology not prone to a floor effect was also implemented to test for an ear advantage.
DESIGN: In the replication of one of the studies, gap detection was measured for three stimuli: a 400-Hz tone, a 4000-Hz tone, and a broad band noise. Temporal gaps were positioned at the midpoints of 500-ms waveforms and imposed with linear 5-ms ramps. An adaptive procedure incorporating an arithmetic step size was used to estimate threshold. In the novel methodology, gap detection in 500-ms segments of broad band noise was measured using an adaptive procedure with interleaved tracks and a geometric step size. Gap boundaries were not shaped. The observers were 7 right-handed, normal-hearing adults.
RESULTS: The replication of the published study suggested that the procedure was likely to be confounded by a floor effect. No evidence of an ear advantage was observed in this replication. The novel methodology yielded threshold estimates for broad band noise that were not contaminated with a floor effect and, again, no evidence of an ear advantage was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found for an ear advantage for gap detection. The demonstration that the procedure used by one published study was likely prone to a floor effect does not account for the finding of an ear advantage in that study. The issue remains unresolved.
DESIGN: In the replication of one of the studies, gap detection was measured for three stimuli: a 400-Hz tone, a 4000-Hz tone, and a broad band noise. Temporal gaps were positioned at the midpoints of 500-ms waveforms and imposed with linear 5-ms ramps. An adaptive procedure incorporating an arithmetic step size was used to estimate threshold. In the novel methodology, gap detection in 500-ms segments of broad band noise was measured using an adaptive procedure with interleaved tracks and a geometric step size. Gap boundaries were not shaped. The observers were 7 right-handed, normal-hearing adults.
RESULTS: The replication of the published study suggested that the procedure was likely to be confounded by a floor effect. No evidence of an ear advantage was observed in this replication. The novel methodology yielded threshold estimates for broad band noise that were not contaminated with a floor effect and, again, no evidence of an ear advantage was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found for an ear advantage for gap detection. The demonstration that the procedure used by one published study was likely prone to a floor effect does not account for the finding of an ear advantage in that study. The issue remains unresolved.