Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Difference from Background: Limit of Detection01:05

Difference from Background: Limit of Detection

8.7K
The limit of detection (LOD) is the smallest amount of analyte that can be distinguished from the background noise. The LOD value corresponds to the concentration at which the analyte signal is three times larger than the standard deviation of the blank signal. Below this value, the analyte signal cannot be differentiated from the background noise. It is calculated by dividing the calibration slope by 3 times the standard deviation of the blank signals.
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
8.7K
Interference: Path Lengths01:10

Interference: Path Lengths

2.4K
Consider two sources of sound, that may or may not be in phase, emitting waves at a single frequency, and consider the frequencies to be the same.
Two special sources may be considered when they are in phase. This can be easily achieved by feeding the two sources from the same source. An example would be synchronizing the two speakers by feeding them with the same source, such as the sound waves produced by a tuning fork. This setup ensures that the two sources have the same frequency and are...
2.4K
Echo01:06

Echo

1.1K
The human ear cannot distinguish between two sources of sound if they happen to reach within a specific time interval, typically 0.1 seconds apart. More than this, and they are perceived as separate sources.
Imagine the sound is reflected back to the ears. Assuming that the source is very close to the human, the difference between hearing the two sounds—the emitted sound and the reflected sound—may be more than the minimum time for perceiving distinct sounds. If this is the case,...
1.1K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Accuracy of automated and non-audiologist-operated audiometry compared to gold-standard testing.

International journal of audiology·2025
Same author

Two Tests for Quantifying Aided Hearing at Low- and High-Input Levels.

Trends in hearing·2025
Same author

Comparison of hearing-aid effectiveness based on user-operated versus traditional audiometry: a randomised clinical trial.

International journal of audiology·2024
Same author

Development and evaluation of a novel user-operated slider-based audiometry method.

International journal of audiology·2024
Same author

Hearing Loss, Hearing Aid Use, and Risk of Dementia in Older Adults.

JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery·2024
Same author

AMTASTM and user-operated smartphone research application audiometry-An evaluation study.

PloS one·2023

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 8, 2026

Behavioral Assessment of Hearing in 2 to 4 Year-old Children: A Two-interval, Observer-based Procedure Using Conditioned Play-based Responses
14:05

Behavioral Assessment of Hearing in 2 to 4 Year-old Children: A Two-interval, Observer-based Procedure Using Conditioned Play-based Responses

Published on: January 23, 2017

29.8K

Simulated Critical Differences for Speech Reception Thresholds.

Ellen Raben Pedersen1, Peter Møller Juhl1

  • 1The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research : JSLHR
|January 24, 2017
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Critical differences for speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were estimated using Monte Carlo simulations. These findings provide a method for determining significant differences in SRT test results, crucial for audiological assessments.

More Related Videos

Electrically Evoked Stapedius Reflex Measurements in Cochlear Implantation and Its Application in the Postoperative Fitting Process
07:00

Electrically Evoked Stapedius Reflex Measurements in Cochlear Implantation and Its Application in the Postoperative Fitting Process

Published on: June 21, 2024

1.6K
Making Sense of Listening: The IMAP Test Battery
11:25

Making Sense of Listening: The IMAP Test Battery

Published on: October 11, 2010

16.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 8, 2026

Behavioral Assessment of Hearing in 2 to 4 Year-old Children: A Two-interval, Observer-based Procedure Using Conditioned Play-based Responses
14:05

Behavioral Assessment of Hearing in 2 to 4 Year-old Children: A Two-interval, Observer-based Procedure Using Conditioned Play-based Responses

Published on: January 23, 2017

29.8K
Electrically Evoked Stapedius Reflex Measurements in Cochlear Implantation and Its Application in the Postoperative Fitting Process
07:00

Electrically Evoked Stapedius Reflex Measurements in Cochlear Implantation and Its Application in the Postoperative Fitting Process

Published on: June 21, 2024

1.6K
Making Sense of Listening: The IMAP Test Battery
11:25

Making Sense of Listening: The IMAP Test Battery

Published on: October 11, 2010

16.4K

Area of Science:

  • Audiology
  • Speech Science
  • Statistical Modeling

Background:

  • Critical differences (CDs) quantify significant score variations in psychometric testing.
  • Established CDs exist for speech discrimination but not for speech reception thresholds (SRTs).
  • Lack of CDs for SRTs hinders accurate interpretation of test-retest variability.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose and validate a method for estimating critical differences for speech reception thresholds (SRTs).
  • To apply Monte Carlo simulations for calculating CDs in SRT testing.
  • To provide CDs for a specific 5-word sentence matrix test using adaptive procedures.

Main Methods:

  • Monte Carlo simulations were employed to estimate CDs for SRTs.
  • Simulations varied parameters such as sentence count, j factor, true SRT distribution, and discrimination function slope.
  • Simulation results were experimentally validated against listening test data for one procedure and parameter set.

Main Results:

  • Estimated critical differences for SRTs were found to be parameter-dependent, showing interactive effects.
  • Simulation-derived CDs demonstrated agreement with experimentally obtained data.
  • The study successfully estimated CDs for a 5-word sentence matrix test.

Conclusions:

  • Critical differences for SRTs are contingent on multiple parameters and require individual determination.
  • The proposed Monte Carlo simulation method provides a viable approach for estimating SRT CDs.
  • Understanding test parameters allows for the derivation of practical rules of thumb for interpreting SRT results.