JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.39 687-696 August 1996.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, L.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, R. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, L.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, R. H.

Effect of Step Size on Clinical and Adaptive 2IFC Procedures in Quiet and in a Noise Background

Lynne Marshall 1
Thomas E. Hanna 1

Richard H. Wilson 2

1 Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory Groton, CT
2 Veterans Administration Medical Center Mountain Home, TN

Audibility thresholds for a 1000-Hz sinusoid were measured with a standard clinical (CLIN) procedure and a two-interval, forced-choice (2IFC) adaptive procedure bracketing 79% correct. Both used 2- and 5-dB step sizes in quiet and in a continuous, broadband noise background. Clinical thresholds were from 2 to 4 dB higher than 2IFC thresholds, depending on the condition. Step size had a larger effect on the CLIN thresholds than the 2IFC thresholds. For the CLIN procedure, thresholds with a 2-dB step size were 1.4 dB lower than with a 5-dB step size. For the 2IFC procedure, thresholds with a 2-dB step size were 0.8 dB higher than with a 5-dB step size. Reliability, as measured by the intrasubject standard deviation, was better for the 2IFC than for the CLIN procedure and better in noise than in quiet. Reliability was unaffected by step size. Adding extra trials to the 2IFC adaptive track decreased the variability across threshold estimates, but more for the noise background than the quiet background. The efficiency of the 2IFC procedure was fairly constant across track length in noise, but decreased for longer track lengths in quiet. In both quiet and noise backgrounds, CLIN procedures were much more efficient than 2IFC procedures.

KEY WORDS: psychophysical procedures, threshold measurement, audiometry, pure tone tests, reliability

Submitted on December 6, 1994
Accepted on January 28, 1996







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.