Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33281677›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020

Maximum Expected Information Approach for Improving Efficiency of Categorical Loudness Scaling.

Sara E Fultz, Stephen T Neely, Judy G Kopun, Daniel M Rasetshwane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Evaluation of Remote Categorical Loudness Scaling.American journal of audiology · 2022
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sara E FultzCenter for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE, United States.
Stephen T NeelyCenter for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE, United States.
Judy G KopunCenter for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE, United States.
Daniel M RasetshwaneCenter for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE, United States.

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM115458 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER · PI ZHANG, YING · 2016 to 2025
$42.8M
The Impact of Mild Hearing Loss on Auditory Perception in Complex EnvironmentsP20GM109023 · NIGMS · FATHER FLANAGAN'S BOYS' HOME · PI CHATTERJEE, MONITA · 2014 to 2023
$23.4M
UNDERSTANDING SUPRATHRESHOLD HEARING DEFICITSR01DC016348 · NIDCD · FATHER FLANAGAN'S BOYS' HOME · PI NEELY, STEPHEN T · 2017 to 2021
$2.1M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016348NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM109023NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM115458
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Categorical loudness scaling (CLS) measures provide useful information about an individual's loudness perception across the dynamic range of hearing. A probability model of CLS categories has previously been described as a multi-category psychometric function (MCPF). In the study, a representative "catalog" of potential listener MCPFs was used in conjunction with maximum-likelihood estimation to derive CLS functions for participants with normal hearing and with hearing loss. The approach of estimating MCPFs for each listener has the potential to improve the accuracy of the CLS measurements, particularly when a relatively low number of data points are available. The present study extends the MCPF approach by using Bayesian inference to select stimulus parameters that are predicted to yield maximum expected information (MEI) during data collection. The accuracy and reliability of the MCPF-MEI approach were compared to the standardized CLS measurement procedure (ISO 16832:2006, 2006). A non-adaptive, fixed-level, paradigm served as a "gold-standard" for this comparison. The test time required to obtain measurements in the standard procedure is a major barrier to its clinical uptake. Test time was reduced from approximately 15 min to approximately 3 min with the MEI-adaptive procedure. Results indicated that the test-retest reliability and accuracy of the MCPF-MEI adaptive procedures were similar to the standardized CLS procedure. Computer simulations suggest that the reliability and accuracy of the MEI procedure were limited by intrinsic uncertainty of the listeners represented in the MCPF catalog. In other words, the MCPF provided insufficient predictive power to significantly improve adaptive-tracking efficiency under practical conditions. Concurrent optimization of both the MCPF catalog and the MEI-adaptive procedure have the potential to produce better results. Regardless of the adaptive-tracking method used in the CLS procedure, the MCPF catalog remains clinically useful for enabling maximum-likelihood determination of loudness categories.

Indexed as

categorical loudness scalingloudnessloudness perceptionmaximum likelihoodpsychoacoustics

Identifiers

PMID33281677
PMCPMC7705216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.