Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(02): 111-117
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18099
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Across- and Within-Channel Gap Detection Thresholds Yielded by Two Different Test Applications

Abdulsalam Alhaidary
*   Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Kishore Tanniru
*   Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

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.

Key Words

auditory perception - auditory processing disorder - gap detection threshold - psychoacoustics - temporal resolution
 

  • REFERENCES

  • American Academy of Audiology (AAA) 2010. Clinical Practice Guidelines Diagnosis, Treatment and Management of Children and Adults with Central Auditory Processing Disorder. https://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/CAPD%20Guidelines%208-2010.pdf_539952af956c79.73897613.pdf . Accessed February 18, 2019
    Google Scholar
  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) 2005 (Central) auditory processing disorders—The role of the audiologist [Technical Report]. https://www.asha.org/policy/PS2005-00114/ . Accessed February 18, 2019
    PubMed
  • Boersma P, Weenink D. 2016 Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer. (Version 6.0.14). [Computer Program]. http://www.praat.org/ . Accessed February 18, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brown LG. 1996; Additional rules for the transformed up-down method in psychophysics. Percept Psychophys 58 (06) 959-962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Elangovan S, Stuart A. 2008; Natural boundaries in gap detection are related to categorical perception of stop consonants. Ear Hear 29 (05) 761-774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Florentine M, Buus S, Geng W. 1999; Psychometric functions for gap detection in a yes-no procedure. J Acoust Soc Am 106 (06) 3512-3520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Formby C, Barker C, Abbey H, Raney JJ. 1993; Detection of silent temporal gaps between narrow-band noise makers having second-formantlike properties of voiceless stop/vowel combinations. J Acoust Soc Am 93 (02) 1023-1027
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Grose JH, Hall III JW, Buss E, Hatch D. 2001; Gap detection for similar and dissimilar gap markers. J Acoust Soc Am 109 (04) 1587-1595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hess BA, Blumsack JT, Ross ME, Brock RE. 2012; Performance at different stimulus intensities with the within- and across-channel adaptive tests of temporal resolution. Int J Audiol 51 (12) 900-905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hoover E, Pasquesi L, Souza P. 2015; Comparison of clinical and traditional gap detection tests. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (06) 540-546
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Keith R. 2000. Random Gap Detection Test. St. Louis, MO: Auditec;
    Google Scholar
  • Kwon BJ. 2012; AUX: a scripting language for auditory signal processing and software packages for psychoacoustic experiments and education. Behav Res Methods 44 (02) 361-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Levitt H. 1971; Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 49 (2B) 467-477
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lister J, Besing J, Koehnke J. 2002; Effects of age and frequency disparity on gap discrimination. J Acoust Soc Am 111 (06) 2793-2800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lister J, Roberts R, Krause JC, DeBiase D, Carlson H. 2011; An adaptive clinical test of temporal resolution: within-channel and across-channel gap detection. Int J Audiol 50 (06) 375-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lister J, Roberts R, Lister FL. 2011; An adaptive clinical test of temporal resolution: age effects. Int J Audiol 50 (06) 367-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lister J, Roberts R, Shackelford J, Rogers C. 2006; An adaptive clinical test of temporal resolution. Am J Audiol 15 (02) 133-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ma X, McPherson B, Ma L. 2015; Behavioral assessment of auditory processing disorder in children with non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 79 (03) 349-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McCroskey RL, Keith R. 1996. Auditory Fusion Test–Revised. St. Louis, MO: Auditec;
    Google Scholar
  • Mishra SK, Panda MR. 2016; Rapid auditory learning of temporal gap detection. J Acoust Soc Am 140 (01) EL50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mishra SK, Panda MR, Herbert C. 2014; Enhanced auditory temporal gap detection in listeners with musical training. J Acoust Soc Am 136 (02) EL173-EL178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moore BC. 2013. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. 6th ed. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill;
    Google Scholar
  • Musiek FE, Shinn JB, Jirsa R, Bamiou DE, Baran JA, Zaida E. 2005; GIN (Gaps-In-Noise) test performance in subjects with confirmed central auditory nervous system involvement. Ear Hear 26 (06) 608-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Phillips DP, Hall SE. 2002; Auditory temporal gap detection for noise markers with partially overlapping and non-overlapping spectra. Hear Res 174 (1–2) 133-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Phillips DP, Taylor TL, Hall SE, Carr MM, Mossop JE. 1997; Detection of silent intervals between noises activating different perceptual channels: some properties of “central” auditory gap detection. J Acoust Soc America 101 (06) 3694-3705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rawool V. 2016. Auditory Processing Deficits: Assessment and Intervention. New York: Theme;
    Google Scholar
  • Shailer MJ, Moore BC. 1983; Gap detection as a function of frequency, bandwidth, and level. J Acoust Soc Am 74 (02) 467-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Soranzo A, Grassi M. 2014; PSYCHOACOUSTICS: a comprehensive MATLAB toolbox for auditory testing. Front Psychol 5: 712
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wong AC, McPherson B. 2015; Adaptive tests of temporal resolution: comparison with the gaps-in-noise test in normal-hearing young adults. Int J Audiol 54 (01) 29-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar