Test-retest Reliability of Various Psychoacoustic Tests in Psycon Application
Background and Aim: Psychoacoustics includes studying the perceived effects of changes in sound intensity, temporal, and frequency aspects that are critical for speech perception. Psycon is one such software used in studies to assess psychoacoustic abilities. Psycon has the potential for wide clinical applications in psychoacoustic research and relies on Auditory syntaX (AUX), a program designed specifically to handle auditory signals. The current study aimed to determine the test-retest reliability of the Psycon application for differential sensitivity measures of frequency, intensity, duration and silence.
Methods: The study included 39 participants with normal hearing sensitivity. Psychoacoustic measures, namely, gap detection threshold, duration discrimination threshold, difference limen of intensity, and difference limen of frequency, were used to assess test-retest reliability. The test-retest reliability of all measures was checked in two separate sessions within one day.
Results: The reliability of each measure was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Test-retest reliability of various psychoacoustic tests measured with Psycon ranges from good to excellent. difference limen of frequency had the highest reliability, followed by duration discrimination thresholds, difference limen of intensity, and gap detection thresholds.
Conclusion: Psycon appears to be a reliable tool for assessing different psychoacoustic abilities.
 Zhang PX. Psychoacoustics. In: Ballou G, editor. Handbook for Sound Engineers. 4th ed. Burlington: Focal Press; 2008. p. 41-64. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-240-80969-4.50007-9]
 Dreschler WA, Plomp R. Relation between psychophysical data and speech perception for hearing-impaired subjects. I. J Acoust Soc Am. 1980;68(6):1608-15. [DOI:10.1121/1.385215]
 Glasberg BR, Moore BC. Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. Scand Audiol Suppl. 1989;32:1-25.
 Jain C. Relationship among psychophysical abilities speech perception in noise and working memory in individuals with normal hearing sensitivity across different age groups [Internet] [PhD Thesis]. University of Mysore; 2016 [cited 2022 Oct 20]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10603/153016
 Jain C, Sahoo JP. The effect of tinnitus on some psychoacoustical abilities in individuals with normal hearing sensitivity. Int Tinnitus J. 2014;19(1):28-35. [DOI:10.5935/0946-5448.20140004]
 Shi L, Chang Y, Li X, Aiken S, Liu L, Wang J. Cochlear Synaptopathy and Noise-Induced Hidden Hearing Loss. Neural Plast. 2016;2016:6143164. [DOI:10.1155/2016/6143164]
 Kwon BJ. AUX: a scripting language for auditory signal processing and software packages for psychoacoustic experiments and education. Behav Res Methods. 2012;44(2):361-73. [DOI:10.3758/s13428-011-0161-1]
 Clark JG. Uses and abuses of hearing loss classification. ASHA. 1981;23(7):493-500.
 Sutherland JE, Campbell K. Immitance audiometry. Prim Care. 1990;17(2):233-47. [DOI:10.1016/S0095-4543(21)00861-7]
 Buus S, Florentine M. Gap detection in normal and impaired listeners: the effect of level and frequency. In: Michelsen A, editor. Time resolution in auditory systems. Proceedings in Life Sciences. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1985. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-70622-6_10]
 Himpel S, Banaschewski T, Grüttner A, Becker A, Heise A, Uebel H, et al. Duration discrimination in the range of milliseconds and seconds in children with ADHD and their unaffected siblings. Psychol Med. 2009;39(10):1745-51. [DOI:10.1017/S003329170900542X]
 Meurmann OH. The difference limen of frequency in tests of auditory function. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1954;118:144-55. [DOI:10.3109/00016485409124004]
 Köning E, Lüscher E. Difference Limen for Intensity. Int J Audiol. 1962;1(2):198-202. [DOI:10.3109/05384916209074042]
 Jain C, Joshi K. Test-Retest Reliability of Various Psychoacoustic Measures Using the Maximum Likelihood Procedure. J Hear Sci. 2020;10(2):55-9. [DOI:10.17430/JHS.2020.10.2.6]
 Devi N, Amritha G, Tanniru K. Effects of nonlinear amplification on differential sensitivity measures in individuals with cochlear hearing impairment. Indian J Otol. 2017;23(3):162-7. [DOI:10.4103/indianjotol.INDIANJOTOL_2_17]
 Grose JH, Hall JW 3rd, Buss E. Gap duration discrimination in listeners with cochlear hearing loss: effects of gap and marker duration, frequency separation, and mode of presentation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2001;2(4):388-98. [DOI:10.1007/s101620010067]
 Lister JJ, Roberts RA, Krause JC, Debiase D, Carlson H. An adaptive clinical test of temporal resolution: within-channel and across-channel gap detection. Int J Audiol. 2011;50(6):375-84. [DOI:10.3109/14992027.2010.551217]
 Alhaidary AA, Tanniru K, Aljadaan AF, Alabdulkarim LM. Auditory temporal resolution in adaptive tasks. Gap detection investigation. Saudi Med J. 2019;40(1):52-8. [DOI:10.15537/smj.2019.1.23814]
 Polit DF. Getting serious about test-retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(6):1713-20. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-014-0632-9]
|Issue||Vol 32 No 2 (2023)|
|Psycon psychoacoustics reliability difference limen perception|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|