Comparison of pure-tone audibility thresholds obtained with audiological and two-interval forced-choice procedures

L. Marshall, Walt Jesteadt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Audibility thresholds were measured at 500 and 4000 Hz with a standard clinical procedure and a two-interval, forced-choice (2IFC) adaptive procedure for 72 normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners, age 17 to 83. Psychometric functions were obtained for clinical, 2IFC, and Yes-No procedures. A measure of response bias was obtained from the Yes-No procedure. The 2IFC adaptive thresholds were 6.5 dB lower than audiological thresholds. The psychometric functions for the forced-choice procedures were generally shallower than those for the clinical procedure and were shifted to lower sound pressure levels. Response bias played a small role at best in accounting for the magnitude of the difference in threshold estimated by the adaptive and clinical procedures or for the differences among the psychometric functions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)82-91
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Speech and Hearing Research
Volume29
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 1 1986

Fingerprint

Psychometrics
psychometrics
Hearing
trend
listener
Pressure
Response Bias

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

@article{2c9993ae505f4f72b484ea9089735aaa,
title = "Comparison of pure-tone audibility thresholds obtained with audiological and two-interval forced-choice procedures",
abstract = "Audibility thresholds were measured at 500 and 4000 Hz with a standard clinical procedure and a two-interval, forced-choice (2IFC) adaptive procedure for 72 normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners, age 17 to 83. Psychometric functions were obtained for clinical, 2IFC, and Yes-No procedures. A measure of response bias was obtained from the Yes-No procedure. The 2IFC adaptive thresholds were 6.5 dB lower than audiological thresholds. The psychometric functions for the forced-choice procedures were generally shallower than those for the clinical procedure and were shifted to lower sound pressure levels. Response bias played a small role at best in accounting for the magnitude of the difference in threshold estimated by the adaptive and clinical procedures or for the differences among the psychometric functions.",
author = "L. Marshall and Walt Jesteadt",
year = "1986",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "82--91",
journal = "Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research",
issn = "1092-4388",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of pure-tone audibility thresholds obtained with audiological and two-interval forced-choice procedures

AU - Marshall, L.

AU - Jesteadt, Walt

PY - 1986/1/1

Y1 - 1986/1/1

N2 - Audibility thresholds were measured at 500 and 4000 Hz with a standard clinical procedure and a two-interval, forced-choice (2IFC) adaptive procedure for 72 normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners, age 17 to 83. Psychometric functions were obtained for clinical, 2IFC, and Yes-No procedures. A measure of response bias was obtained from the Yes-No procedure. The 2IFC adaptive thresholds were 6.5 dB lower than audiological thresholds. The psychometric functions for the forced-choice procedures were generally shallower than those for the clinical procedure and were shifted to lower sound pressure levels. Response bias played a small role at best in accounting for the magnitude of the difference in threshold estimated by the adaptive and clinical procedures or for the differences among the psychometric functions.

AB - Audibility thresholds were measured at 500 and 4000 Hz with a standard clinical procedure and a two-interval, forced-choice (2IFC) adaptive procedure for 72 normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners, age 17 to 83. Psychometric functions were obtained for clinical, 2IFC, and Yes-No procedures. A measure of response bias was obtained from the Yes-No procedure. The 2IFC adaptive thresholds were 6.5 dB lower than audiological thresholds. The psychometric functions for the forced-choice procedures were generally shallower than those for the clinical procedure and were shifted to lower sound pressure levels. Response bias played a small role at best in accounting for the magnitude of the difference in threshold estimated by the adaptive and clinical procedures or for the differences among the psychometric functions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0022626742&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0022626742&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 82

EP - 91

JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

SN - 1092-4388

IS - 1

ER -