Comparison of Performance of Older Adults on Two Tests of Temporal Resolution

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-225
Author(s):  
Ramya Vaidyanath ◽  
Asha Yathiraj
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Temporal Resolution ◽  
Noise Signal ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Gap Detection ◽  
Older Individuals ◽  
Detection Thresholds ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
The Difference

Purpose Gap-detection thresholds have been reported to vary depending on the type of stimuli used. The current study compared the performance of older adults on 2 tests of temporal resolution, one with random gaps and the other with gaps in the center of a noise signal. The study also determined which of the 2 tests was able to detect more temporal resolution deficits in older individuals. Method Two tests of temporal resolution, the Gap Detection Test (GDT; Shivaprakash, 2003) and the Gaps-In-Noise test (GIN; Musiek et al., 2005), were administered to 31 older adults with near normal hearing, aged 55 to 70 years. The order in which the tests were administered was randomized. Results The gap-detection thresholds obtained using GIN were significantly higher than those obtained using GDT. The difference in thresholds was ascribed to the randomness with which gaps were interspersed within noise segments in the 2 tests. More individuals failed on GIN than GDT. The older adults with high-frequency hearing loss obtained poorer gap thresholds than those with normal hearing. Conclusion The results indicated that older individuals failed GIN more often compared to GDT. This was attributed to the differences in stimuli and procedure used in the 2 tests.

Effects of Age and Hearing Loss on Gap Detection and the Precedence Effect

2004 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 965-978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Roberts ◽  
Jennifer J. Lister
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Temporal Resolution ◽  
Noise Burst ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Precedence Effect ◽  
Gap Detection ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise

Older listeners with normal-hearing sensitivity and impaired-hearing sensitivity often demonstrate poorer-than-normal performance on tasks of speech understanding in noise and reverberation. Deficits in temporal resolution and in the precedence effect may underlie this difficulty. Temporal resolution is often studied by means of a gap-detection paradigm. This task is similar to binaural fusion paradigms used to measure the precedence effect. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if within-channel (measured with monotic and diotic gap detection) or across-channel (measured with dichotic gap detection) temporal resolution is related to fusion (measured with lag-burst thresholds; LBTs) under dichotic, anechoic, and reverberant conditions. Gap-detection thresholds (GDTs) and LBTs were measured by means of noise-burst stimuli for 3 groups of listeners: young adults with normal-hearing sensitivity (YNH), older adults with normal-hearing sensitivity (ONH), and older adults with impaired-hearing sensitivity (OIH). The GDTs indicated that across-channel temporal resolution is poorer than within-channel temporal resolution and that the effects of age and hearing loss are dependent on condition. Results for the fusion task indicated higher LBTs in reverberation than for the dichotic and anechoic conditions, regardless of group, and no effect of age or hearing loss for the nonreverberant conditions. However, higher LBTs were observed in the reverberant condition for the ONH listeners. Further, there was a correlation between across-channel temporal resolution and fusion in reverberation. Gap detection and fusion may not necessarily reflect the same underlying processes; however, across-channel gap detection may influence fusion under certain conditions (i.e., in reverberation).

Electrophysiological Gap Detection Thresholds: Effects of Age and Comparison with a Behavioral Measure

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (10) ◽  
pp. 999-1007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon B. Palmer ◽  
Frank E. Musiek
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Temporal Processing ◽  
Detection Threshold ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Behavioral Measure ◽  
Gap Detection ◽  
Adult Group ◽  
Younger Adults ◽  
Detection Thresholds ◽  
Processing Ability

Background: Temporal processing ability has been linked to speech understanding ability and older adults often complain of difficulty understanding speech in difficult listening situations. Temporal processing can be evaluated using gap detection procedures. There is some research showing that gap detection can be evaluated using an electrophysiological procedure. However, there is currently no research establishing gap detection threshold using the N1-P2 response. Purpose: The purposes of the current study were to 1) determine gap detection thresholds in younger and older normal-hearing adults using an electrophysiological measure, 2) compare the electrophysiological gap detection threshold and behavioral gap detection threshold within each group, and 3) investigate the effect of age on each gap detection measure. Design: This study utilized an older adult group and younger adult group to compare performance on an electrophysiological and behavioral gap detection procedure. Study Sample: The subjects in this study were 11 younger, normal-hearing adults (mean = 22 yrs) and 11 older, normal-hearing adults (mean = 64.36 yrs). Data Collection: All subjects completed an adaptive behavioral gap detection procedure in order to determine their behavioral gap detection threshold (BGDT). Subjects also completed an electrophysiologic gap detection procedure to determine their electrophysiologic gap detection threshold (EGDT). Results: Older adults demonstrated significantly larger gap detection thresholds than the younger adults. However, EGDT and BGDT were not significantly different in either group. The mean difference between EGDT and BGDT for all subjects was 0.43 msec. Conclusions: Older adults show poorer gap detection ability when compared to younger adults. However, this study shows that gap detection thresholds can be measured using evoked potential recordings and yield results similar to a behavioral measure.

N1-P2 Recordings to Gaps in Broadband Noise

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 037-045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon B. Palmer ◽  
Frank E. Musiek
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Resolution ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Evoked Potential ◽  
Detection Threshold ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
Gap Detection ◽  
Electrophysiological Response ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Waveform Amplitude

Background: Normal temporal processing is important for the perception of speech in quiet and in difficult listening situations. Temporal resolution is commonly measured using a behavioral gap detection task, where the patient or subject must participate in the evaluation process. This is difficult to achieve with subjects who cannot reliably complete a behavioral test. However, recent research has investigated the use of evoked potential measures to evaluate gap detection. Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to record N1-P2 responses to gaps in broadband noise in normal hearing young adults. Comparisons were made of the N1 and P2 latencies, amplitudes, and morphology to different length gaps in noise in an effort to quantify the changing responses of the brain to these stimuli. It was the goal of this study to show that electrophysiological recordings can be used to evaluate temporal resolution and measure the influence of short and long gaps on the N1-P2 waveform. Research Design: This study used a repeated-measures design. All subjects completed a behavioral gap detection procedure to establish their behavioral gap detection threshold (BGDT). N1-P2 waveforms were recorded to the gap in a broadband noise. Gap durations were 20 msec, 2 msec above their BGDT, and 2 msec. These durations were chosen to represent a suprathreshold gap, a near-threshold gap, and a subthreshold gap. Study Sample: Fifteen normal-hearing young adult females were evaluated. Subjects were recruited from the local university community. Data Collection and Analysis: Latencies and amplitudes for N1 and P2 were compared across gap durations for all subjects using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. A qualitative description of responses was also included. Results: Most subjects did not display an N1-P2 response to a 2 msec gap, but all subjects had present clear evoked potential responses to 20 msec and 2+ msec gaps. Decreasing gap duration toward threshold resulted in decreasing waveform amplitude. However, N1 and P2 latencies remained stable as gap duration changed. Conclusions: N1-P2 waveforms can be elicited by gaps in noise in young normal-hearing adults. The responses are present as low as 2 msec above behavioral gap detection thresholds (BGDT). Gaps that are below BGDT do not generally evoke an electrophysiological response. These findings indicate that when a waveform is present, the gap duration is likely above their BGDT. Waveform amplitude is also a good index of gap detection, since amplitude decreases with decreasing gap duration. Future studies in this area will focus on various age groups and individuals with auditory disorders.

scholarly journals The Relationship between Random Gap Detection and Hearing in Noise Test Performances

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 948-954 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paige Heeke ◽  
Andrew J. Vermiglio ◽  
Emery Bulla ◽  
Keerthana Velappan ◽  
Xiangming Fang
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Temporal Resolution ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Gap Detection ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Noise Performance ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractTemporal acoustic cues are particularly important for speech understanding, and past research has inferred a relationship between temporal resolution and speech recognition in noise ability. A temporal resolution disorder is thought to affect speech understanding abilities because persons would not be able to accurately encode these frequency transitions, creating speech discrimination errors even in the presence of normal pure-tone hearing.The primary purpose was to investigate the relationship between temporal resolution as measured by the Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT) and speech recognition in noise performance as measured by the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) in adults with normal audiometric thresholds. The second purpose was to examine the relationship between temporal resolution and spatial release from masking.The HINT and RGDT protocols were administered under headphones according to the guidelines specified by the developers. The HINT uses an adaptive protocol to determine the signal-to-noise ratio where the participant recognizes 50% of the sentences. For HINT conditions, the target sentences were presented at 0° and the steady-state speech-shaped noise and a four-talker babble (4TB) was presented at 0°, +90°, or −90° for noise front, noise right, and noise left conditions, respectively. The RGDT is used to evaluate temporal resolution by determining the smallest time interval between two matching stimuli that can be detected by the participant. The RGDT threshold is the shortest time interval where the participant detects a gap. Tonal (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) and click stimuli random gap subtests were presented at 60 dB HL. Tonal subtests were presented in a random order to minimize presentation order effects.Twenty-one young, native English-speaking participants with normal pure-tone thresholds (≤25 dB HL for 500–4000 Hz) participated in this study. The average age of the participants was 20.2 years (SD = 0.66).Spearman rho correlation coefficients were conducted using SPSS 22 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) to determine the relationships between HINT and RGDT thresholds and derived measures (spatial advantage and composite scores). Nonparametric testing was used because of the ordinal nature of RGDT data.Moderate negative correlations (p < 0.05) were found between eight RGDT and HINT threshold measures and a moderate positive correlation (p < 0.05) was found between RGDT click thresholds and HINT 4TB spatial advantage. This suggests that as temporal resolution abilities worsened, speech recognition in noise performance improved. These correlations were not statistically significant after the p value reflected the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.The results of the present study imply that the RGDT and HINT use different temporal processes. Performance on the RGDT cannot be predicted from HINT thresholds or vice versa.

Temporal Resolution in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners Using Frequency-Modulated Stimuli

1992 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 436-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P. Madden ◽  
Lawrence L. Feth
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Resolution ◽  
Sound Pressure ◽  
Discrimination Performance ◽  
Frequency Discrimination ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Pressure Level ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Individual

This study compares the temporal resolution of frequency-modulated sinusoids by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects in a discrimination task. One signal increased linearly by 200 Hz in 50 msec. The other was identical except that its trajectory followed a series of discrete steps. Center frequencies were 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. As the number of steps was increased, the duration of the individual steps decreased, and the subjects’ discrimination performance monotonically decreased to chance. It was hypothesized that the listeners could not temporally resolve the trajectory of the step signals at short step durations. At equal sensation levels, and at equal sound pressure levels, temporal resolution was significantly reduced for the impaired subjects. The difference between groups was smaller in the equal sound pressure level condition. Performance was much poorer at 4000 Hz than at the other test frequencies in all conditions because of poorer frequency discrimination at that frequency.

Relation Between the Screening Checklist for Auditory Processing in Adults and Diagnostic Auditory Processing Test Performance

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Ramya Vaidyanath ◽  
Asha Yathiraj
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Temporal Resolution ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Auditory Memory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Older Individuals ◽  
The Family ◽  
Auditory Integration

Purpose The aim of the study was to evaluate the relationship between the Screening Checklist for Auditory Processing in Adults and the performance of older adults on a battery of diagnostic tests for auditory processing. This was done for two versions of the checklist, one answered by older individuals at risk for auditory processing disorder (APD) and the other by the family of the older adults. Method Forty-nine older adults and 34 of their family members were initially tested with the screening checklist, each being tested with the version developed for them. Approximately half of the older adults had normal pure-tone thresholds, while the others had mild–moderate hearing loss above 2 kHz. The older adults were administered tests of auditory separation/closure, auditory integration, temporal resolution, temporal patterning, and auditory memory and sequencing. Results Most of the older adults and their family members reported of the presence of auditory processing difficulties on the screening checklist. On the diagnostic test battery, many of the older adults, irrespective of their high-frequency hearing sensitivity, failed the tests measuring temporal resolution and auditory integration. The sensitivity and specificity of the checklist answered by the older individuals were 69.05% and 71.43%, respectively. On the other hand, for the checklist answered by the family members, it was 77.78% and 33.33%, respectively. The test–retest reliability of the two versions of the checklist was found to be good. Conclusions As the specificity of the checklist answered by the family members was considerably lower than that answered by the older adults, the use of the version for the latter group is recommended. However, the checklist answered by the caregivers could be used to complement information obtained from the older adults at risk for APD when the older adults are unable to give valid responses.

scholarly journals Human Auditory Brainstem Response to Temporal Gaps in Noise

2001 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 737-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynne A. Werner ◽  
Richard C. Folsom ◽  
Lisa R. Mancl ◽  
Connie L. Syapin
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Response ◽  
Detection Threshold ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
Gap Detection ◽  
Detection Thresholds ◽  
Brainstem Response ◽  
High Pass

Gap detection is a commonly used measure of temporal resolution, although the mechanisms underlying gap detection are not well understood. To the extent that gap detection depends on processes within, or peripheral to, the auditory brainstem, one would predict that a measure of gap threshold based on the auditory brainstem response (ABR) would be similar to the psychophysical gap detection threshold. Three experiments were performed to examine the relationship between ABR gap threshold and gap detection. Thresholds for gaps in a broadband noise were measured in young adults with normal hearing, using both psychophysical techniques and electrophysiological techniques that use the ABR. The mean gap thresholds obtained with the two methods were very similar, although ABR gap thresholds tended to be lower than psychophysical gap thresholds. There was a modest correlation between psychophysical and ABR gap thresholds across participants. ABR and psychophysical thresholds for noise masked by temporally continuous, high-pass, or spectrally notched noise were measured in adults with normal hearing. Restricting the frequency range with masking led to poorer gap thresholds on both measures. High-pass maskers affected the ABR and psychophysical gap thresholds similarly. Notched-noise-masked ABR and psychophysical gap thresholds were very similar except that low-frequency, notched-noise-masked ABR gap threshold was much poorer at low levels. The ABR gap threshold was more sensitive to changes in signal-to-masker ratio than was the psychophysical gap detection threshold. ABR and psychophysical thresholds for gaps in broadband noise were measured in listeners with sensorineural hearing loss and in infants. On average, both ABR gap thresholds and psychophysical gap detection thresholds of listeners with hearing loss were worse than those of listeners with normal hearing, although individual differences were observed. Psychophysical gap detection thresholds of 3- and 6-month-old infants were an order of magnitude worse than those of adults with normal hearing, as previously reported; however, ABR gap thresholds of 3-month-old infants were no different from those of adults with normal hearing. These results suggest that ABR gap thresholds and psychophysical gap detection depend on at least some of the same mechanisms within the auditory system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document