Suppr超能文献

目标监测与双耳监测的双耳分听程序比较。

Comparison of target monitoring and two-ear monitoring dichotic listening procedures.

作者信息

Speaks C, Niccum N, Leathers R, Katsuki-Nakamura J

机构信息

Department of Communication Disorders, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455.

出版信息

J Acoust Soc Am. 1989 May;85(5):2053-8. doi: 10.1121/1.397857.

Abstract

The dichotic listening performance of 40 listeners was assessed for consonant-vowel (CV) nonsense syllables with two procedures. One was a conventional two-ear monitoring task in which listeners attended to both ears and provided two responses for each pair of syllables. The ear advantage was described by % RE-% LE. The second was target monitoring, a yes/no task in which listeners attended to only one ear and listened for the presence of a target syllable. That procedure provided both hit and false alarm rates for each ear, and the ear advantage was described by P(C)maxRE-P(C)maxLE, which is insensitive to decision variables. Although both procedures yielded mean right-ear advantages (REA), the mean REA of +7.5% with two-ear monitoring was significantly different from the mean REA of +2.6% with target monitoring. In addition, although 62% of the listeners had a significant REA with the conventional procedure, only 40% had a significant REA with target monitoring. Decision variables, which are not controlled with conventional dichotic testing methods, may contribute to the ear advantage as it is described frequently in the literature.

摘要

采用两种程序对40名听者的双耳分听表现进行了评估,评估对象为辅音-元音(CV)无意义音节。一种是传统的双耳监测任务,即听者同时关注双耳,并对每对音节给出两个反应。耳优势用%RE-%LE来描述。第二种是目标监测,即一种是/否任务,听者只关注一只耳朵并聆听目标音节的出现。该程序给出了每只耳朵的命中率和误报率,耳优势用P(C)maxRE-P(C)maxLE来描述,它对决策变量不敏感。虽然两种程序都产生了平均右耳优势(REA),但双耳监测时+7.5%的平均REA与目标监测时+2.6%的平均REA有显著差异。此外,虽然62%的听者在传统程序中有显著的REA,但在目标监测中只有40%有显著的REA。决策变量在传统双耳测试方法中未得到控制,可能会导致文献中经常描述的耳优势。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验