The effect of presentation level on the Gaps-In-Noise (GIN) test.

The Gaps-In-Noise (GIN) test is a new procedure used in the diagnosis of central auditory processing disorders. Performance on the GIN is recorded as approximate gap detection threshold and percent correct. In order to utilize the GIN test clinically, it is important to know how presentation level influences performance on the GIN. To this end, ten normal-hearing adults were administered the GIN at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 50 dB SL with regard to threshold to GIN noise. Results indicated that performance for both the approximate gap detection threshold (A.th) and percent correct improved with increasing presentation level. Performance at 35 dB SL was not significantly different from the standard clinical presentation level (50 dB SL). Gaps that were between 5 and 8 msec in duration tended to show more variation across presentation levels. Although an influence of presentation level was noted, this influence should not be manifested at the standard clinical presentation level.

[1]  D. P. Phillips,et al.  Sensitivity of unanesthetized chinchilla auditory system to noise burst onset, and the effects of carboplatin , 2001, Hearing Research.

[2]  Doris-Eva Bamiou,et al.  GIN (Gaps-In-Noise) Test Performance in Subjects with Confirmed Central Auditory Nervous System Involvement , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[3]  The relation between gap detection, loudness, and loudness growth in noise-masked normal-hearing listeners. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  M. Liberman,et al.  Auditory-nerve response from cats raised in a low-noise chamber. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  S. D. Thomas,et al.  Gap detection as a function of stimulus loudness for listeners with and without hearing loss. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[6]  Roderick J. A. Little,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data: Little/Statistical Analysis with Missing Data , 2002 .

[7]  P. Fitzgibbons,et al.  Temporal gap detection in noise as a function of frequency, bandwidth, and level. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  F. Musiek,et al.  Distortion product otoacoustic emissions: hit and false-positive rates in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[9]  R Carhart,et al.  An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66-55. , 1966, [Technical report] SAM-TR. USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.

[10]  P. Onghena,et al.  Some issues in the statistical analysis of completely randomized and repeated measures designs for speech, language, and hearing research. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[11]  C. DeFilippo,et al.  Detection of a temporal gap in low-frequency narrow-band signals by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  W. O'Neill,et al.  Neural correlates of behavioral gap detection in the inferior colliculus of the young CBA mouse , 1997, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[13]  J J Eggermont,et al.  Firing rate and firing synchrony distinguish dynamic from steady state sound , 1997, Neuroreport.

[14]  R. Plomp Rate of Decay of Auditory Sensation , 1964 .

[15]  J H Grose,et al.  Gap detection for pairs of noise bands: effects of stimulus level and frequency separation. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  B C Moore,et al.  Detection of temporal gaps in sinusoids: effects of frequency and level. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.