ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023
Validation of the adaptive scan method in the quest for time-efficient methods of testing auditory processes.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-dimensional evaluation of user-operated audible contrast sensitivity tests towards efficient hearing healthcare services.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Validating a rapid psychophysical procedure for estimating interaural time difference thresholds.Hearing research · 2026Article
- Effects of Gamification on Performance and Subjective Listening Effort on a Spatial Release From Masking Task.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- Performance of Children with and without Auditory Processing Disorders in Adaptive Temporal Gap Detection Measures.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
- At-Home Auditory Assessment Using Portable Automated Rapid Testing (PART) to Understand Self-Reported Hearing Difficulties.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A major barrier to the clinical application of psychophysical testing of central auditory processes is the time required to obtain precise estimates of different listening abilities. In this study, we validate a novel adaptive scan (AS) method of threshold estimation that is designed to adapt on a range of values around threshold rather than on a single threshold value. This method has the advantage of providing the listener with greater familiarity with the stimulus characteristics near threshold while maintaining precise measurement and increasing time-efficiency. Additionally, we explore the time-efficiency of AS through comparison with two more conventional adaptive algorithms and the method of constant stimuli in two common psychophysical tasks: the detection of a gap in noise and the detection of a tone in noise. Seventy undergraduates without hearing complaints were tested using all four methods. The AS method provided similar threshold estimates with similar precision to those from the other adaptive methods and, thus, it is a valid adaptive method of psychophysical testing. We also provide an analysis of the AS method based on precision metrics to propose a shortened version of the algorithm that maximizes the time/precision tradeoff and can achieve similar thresholds to the adaptive methods tested in the validation. This work lays the foundation for using AS across a wide variety of psychophysical assessments and experimental situations where different levels of precision and/or time-efficiency may be required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.