Evaluation of Temporal Processing Abilities: A Pilot Study for Verification of the Quick Gaps-in-Noise Test

Abstract

INTRO: The well-established Gaps-In-Noise (GIN) test is a reliable measure of temporal processing. However, the time required for test administration is approximately 17 minutes, which is not reasonable for most instances of clinical applicability. This test has shown to have promising applicability in varying areas for audiologic care. If the time it takes to complete the GIN could be reduced while maintaining its diagnostic value, more clinicians may be willing to utilize the procedure. Temporal processing, the function of sound perception based on acoustic characteristics defined within the time domain, is significant in one’s ability to detect and appropriately integrate and interpret auditory signals. The appropriate function of this process relies on a structurally sound central auditory nervous system. There are several tests that can be useful in addressing difficulties with listening and understanding experienced by the individual, such as speech-in-noise tests or tests of temporal processing, including the GIN. However, the GIN is not influenced by the individual's native language, like speech-in-noise tests, and is sensitive to dysfunction of the central auditory nervous system while utilizing a simple button indicator for positive detection. PURPOSE: The aims of this pilot study were to 1) verify and validate thresholds of the QuickGIN, a modification of the GIN, by comparing gap detection thresholds measured via the GIN and QuickGIN, 2) determine the test-retest reliability of the QuickGIN, and 3) evaluate possible ear differences. An additional aim was to 1) measure the average duration of test administration for the QuickGIN and 2) determine the number of trials necessary to establish a stable gap detection threshold. A third tertiary aim was to describe the possible relationships between the gap detection thresholds from both measures and 1) Quick SIN scores, 2) extended high-frequency thresholds, 3) Fletcher PTA, 4) sensorineural hearing loss, 5) conductive hearing loss, and 6) neurological history. HYPOTHESES: 1) the QuickGIN would be comparable to the GIN, and there would be no significant differences between the test-retest or ears for either measure; 2) the QuickGIN would take less time to administer, and a stable threshold would be achieved within four out of six trials. 3) Due to the limits of the collected data, no hypotheses were predicted for the previously mentioned tertiary aims. METHOD: Subjects underwent a full audiogram from 250-16,000Hz at octave and select inter-octave frequencies, including bone conduction at octave frequencies from 500-4000Hz. The Quick SIN was then administered, followed by the GIN and QuickGIN in randomized order. RESULTS: The QuickGIN gap detection thresholds were significantly reduced in comparison to the measured GIN thresholds. No differences were seen for test-retest or ears for either measure. The average administration time for the QuickGIN was about two minutes per ear, and a stable threshold (of 77%) could be obtained at two out of three trials. CONCLUSION: The QuickGIN has the potential to be a reliable modification of the GIN with strong clinical utility and applicability. However, further research and normative data need to be determined for this test to be applied in the clinical setting.