Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37349625›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023

Validation of the adaptive scan method in the quest for time-efficient methods of testing auditory processes.

E S Lelo de Larrea-Mancera, T Stavropoulos, A A Carrillo, K N Menon, E C Hoover, D A Eddins, F J Gallun, A R Seitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. Article
  3. Article
  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

8 authors.

E S Lelo de Larrea-ManceraNortheastern University, College of Science, Psychology; Center for Cognitive and Brain Health, Boston, MA, USA. e.lelodelarrea@northeastern.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8626-5621
T StavropoulosNortheastern University, College of Science, Psychology; Center for Cognitive and Brain Health, Boston, MA, USA.
A A CarrilloUniversity of California Riverside, UCR Brain Game Center for Mental Fitness and Wellbeing, Riverside, CA, USA.
K N MenonDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, MD, USA.
E C HooverDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, MD, USA.
D A EddinsUniversity of South Florida, Communication Sciences and Disorders, Tampa, FL, USA.
F J GallunOregon Health & Science University, Oregon Hearing Research Center, Portland, OR, USA.
A R SeitzNortheastern University, College of Science, Psychology; Center for Cognitive and Brain Health, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Efficient diagnostic tools to evaluate central auditory dysfunctionR01DC015051 · NIDCD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI EDDINS, DAVID A., GALLUN, FREDERICK J. · 2016 to 2020
$2.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC 015051NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015051
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsNoiseAuditory ThresholdHumansPsychoacousticsTime FactorsPhysiological psychologyPsychoacousticsPsychometrics/testing

Identifiers

PMID37349625
PMCPMC10600050

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.