Abstract
Objective: Objective threshold estimation is possible using statistics such as magnitude-squared coherence (MSC) and responses such as the 40-Hz auditory evoked potential (AEP). The purpose of this paper is to compare three general methods of threshold estimation using MSC. Design: Using 500-Hz amplitude-modulated tones and 40–Hz AEPs from 10 paid–volunteer young adults with normal hearing, we compared three MSC–based threshold estimation methods-extrapolation, intensity series, and adaptive. Results: The extrapolation method yielded low thresholds but unacceptable variability. The intensity series method was insensitive and time–consuming. Two adaptive methods displayed good performance in terms of precision and sensitivity. The first employed an MSC criterion with a 13.5% false positive rate (per trial), but achieved overall false positive rates under 5% after 5 to 7 runs, requiring 30 to 40 minutes test time (a run is a single set of ascending or descending trials, terminated by a reversal). The second, which performed better overall, included only a single run, but collected more data at intensities near threshold than at higher intensities; test time could be further reduced (from 22 to 18 minutes) by using a stopping rule based on initial MSC and noise power estimates at each test intensity. If speed is paramount, a simple single–run method achieved threshold estimates in about 9 minutes, starting at 40 dB nHL, with acceptable precision but less sensitivity. Conclusions: A single-run adaptive method, with or without collection of additional data near threshold, yielded the best results, in terms of statistical performance and data collection time.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 299-310 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Ear and Hearing |
| Volume | 16 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| State | Published - 1995 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Otorhinolaryngology
- Speech and Hearing
Cite this
Comparison of objective threshold estimation procedures for 40–hz auditory evoked potentials. / Dobie, Robert A; Wilson, Michael J.
In: Ear and Hearing, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1995, p. 299-310.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of objective threshold estimation procedures for 40–hz auditory evoked potentials
AU - Dobie, Robert A
AU - Wilson, Michael J.
PY - 1995
Y1 - 1995
N2 - Objective: Objective threshold estimation is possible using statistics such as magnitude-squared coherence (MSC) and responses such as the 40-Hz auditory evoked potential (AEP). The purpose of this paper is to compare three general methods of threshold estimation using MSC. Design: Using 500-Hz amplitude-modulated tones and 40–Hz AEPs from 10 paid–volunteer young adults with normal hearing, we compared three MSC–based threshold estimation methods-extrapolation, intensity series, and adaptive. Results: The extrapolation method yielded low thresholds but unacceptable variability. The intensity series method was insensitive and time–consuming. Two adaptive methods displayed good performance in terms of precision and sensitivity. The first employed an MSC criterion with a 13.5% false positive rate (per trial), but achieved overall false positive rates under 5% after 5 to 7 runs, requiring 30 to 40 minutes test time (a run is a single set of ascending or descending trials, terminated by a reversal). The second, which performed better overall, included only a single run, but collected more data at intensities near threshold than at higher intensities; test time could be further reduced (from 22 to 18 minutes) by using a stopping rule based on initial MSC and noise power estimates at each test intensity. If speed is paramount, a simple single–run method achieved threshold estimates in about 9 minutes, starting at 40 dB nHL, with acceptable precision but less sensitivity. Conclusions: A single-run adaptive method, with or without collection of additional data near threshold, yielded the best results, in terms of statistical performance and data collection time.
AB - Objective: Objective threshold estimation is possible using statistics such as magnitude-squared coherence (MSC) and responses such as the 40-Hz auditory evoked potential (AEP). The purpose of this paper is to compare three general methods of threshold estimation using MSC. Design: Using 500-Hz amplitude-modulated tones and 40–Hz AEPs from 10 paid–volunteer young adults with normal hearing, we compared three MSC–based threshold estimation methods-extrapolation, intensity series, and adaptive. Results: The extrapolation method yielded low thresholds but unacceptable variability. The intensity series method was insensitive and time–consuming. Two adaptive methods displayed good performance in terms of precision and sensitivity. The first employed an MSC criterion with a 13.5% false positive rate (per trial), but achieved overall false positive rates under 5% after 5 to 7 runs, requiring 30 to 40 minutes test time (a run is a single set of ascending or descending trials, terminated by a reversal). The second, which performed better overall, included only a single run, but collected more data at intensities near threshold than at higher intensities; test time could be further reduced (from 22 to 18 minutes) by using a stopping rule based on initial MSC and noise power estimates at each test intensity. If speed is paramount, a simple single–run method achieved threshold estimates in about 9 minutes, starting at 40 dB nHL, with acceptable precision but less sensitivity. Conclusions: A single-run adaptive method, with or without collection of additional data near threshold, yielded the best results, in terms of statistical performance and data collection time.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029052199&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029052199&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 7672479
AN - SCOPUS:0029052199
VL - 16
SP - 299
EP - 310
JO - Ear and Hearing
JF - Ear and Hearing
SN - 0196-0202
IS - 3
ER -