Adaptive tests of temporal resolution: Comparison with the gaps-in-noise test in normal-hearing young adults

Abstract

Objective: Auditory processing disorder patients may have deficits in auditory temporal resolution. This study explored: (1) the ear specific norms for young adults using the adaptive tests of temporal resolution (ATTR); (2) the reliability of ATTR using two different modes of stimuli presentation; and (3) the concurrent validity of ATTR with reference to the gaps-in-noise (GIN) test. Design: GIN and ATTR were administered through a standard audiometer and headphones. As ATTR can also be completed using a computer with commercially available headphones, thresholds from these two variants were compared. Study sample: Thirty normal-hearing young adults were recruited. Results: The mean ATTR gap detection thresholds (GDTs) derived under audiometer administration were 4.60 ms (SD 1.49) and 4.97 ms (SD 1.98) for the left and right ear, respectively. The approximated threshold (A. th.), an equivalent measure to the GDT in the GIN, mean values were 5.37 ms (SD 0.98) and 5.33 ms (SD 1.07) for left and right ears, respectively. No significant threshold difference was found between the ATTR variants. A positive, moderate correlation was found, and Bland-Altman plot analysis revealed good agreement, between GDT and A.th. Conclusions: ATTR and GIN results were moderately associated. Moreover, the ATTR was found to have high test-retest reliability and high specificity for the current participants.

Key Words::

• Adaptive test
• auditory processing
• temporal processing
• test utility

Acknowledgements

Special thanks are given to Dr Jennifer Lister for providing the adaptive tests of temporal resolution software and Edwin Leung for his generous help in backward translation of test materials from traditional Chinese to English. The authors would also like to thank Martin Tse for his helpful assistance in recruiting subjects and providing suggestions on the statistical analysis. The constructive advice of Dr Maureen Valente and three anonymous reviewers is gratefully acknowledged.

Declaration of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.