PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 292144

Adaptive testing in audiology.

H Levitt
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A general approach to adaptive testing of the up-down type is described. Audiological applications of the procedure are described, including measurement of the auditory threshold, estimating the spread of the subject's response curve, testing for sequential response dependencies, and finding PB-max. Guidelines are provided for the practical implementation of these procedures using relatively simple rules for controlling stimulus levels and for estimating the parameters of interest. Also described is the Simplical Method, a multivariate adaptive procedure which, like the transformed up-down method, is relatively efficient yet involves simple rules of adjustment and of estimation. The Simplical Method has been used in the adaptive fitting of a wearable master hearing aid and an example of this application is given.

Explore related subjects

AudiometryAuditory ThresholdHumansPsychometricsJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H Levitt. 1978. Adaptive testing in audiology.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/292144/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1992

Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds.

The performance on a conversation-following task by 24 hearing-impaired persons was compared with that of 24 matched controls with normal hearing in the presence of three background noises: (a) speech-spectrum random noise, (b) a male voice, and (c) the male voice played in reverse. The subjects' task was to readjust the sound level of a female voice (signal), every time the signal voice was attenuated, to the subjective level at which it was just possible to understand what was being said. To assess the benefit of lipreading, half of the material was presented audiovisually and half auditorily only. It was predicted that background speech would have a greater masking effect than reversed speech, which would in turn have a lesser masking effect than random noise. It was predicted that hearing-impaired subjects would perform more poorly than the normal-hearing controls in a background of speech. The influence of lipreading was expected to be constant across groups and conditions. The results showed that the hearing-impaired subjects were equally affected by the three background noises and that normal-hearing persons were less affected by the background speech than by noise. The performance of the normal-hearing persons was superior to that of the hearing-impaired subjects. The prediction about lipreading was confirmed. The results were explained in terms of the reduced temporal resolution by the hearing-impaired subjects.

Audiometry↗
PubMed1992

Analysis of the efficiency of retrocochlear screening.

The auditory brainstem response (ABR), as well as associated audiologic and radiographic studies of 175 patients suspected of having cerebellopontine angle tumors were reviewed. The majority of patients presented with asymmetric hearing loss. Eight acoustic neuromas were identified. All eight had abnormal ABRs. The false-positive rate was 22%. Rollover and acoustic reflex testing played a minimal role in the decision as to whether or not an ABR was ordered and, as a result, are not important in the search for retrocochlear disease. The cost per tumor diagnosed was roughly $7600. A rational approach to tumor screening based on the efficiency and cost of the screening tests, the frequency of abnormal ABRs, and the cost per tumor diagnosed is presented.

Audiometry↗