The forty hertz click stimulation trials lasted 500ms and consisted of 20 identical bursts of white noise (1.5 ms) in duration. The overall settings were similar to those previously used [31] (link). The auditory stimuli were designed in Matlab (The Math-Works, Inc.). The experiment was programmed and presented using Psychopy software [33] (link). The inter-stimulus interval was set at 700-1000 ms. The sounds were presented binaurally through Sennheiser HD 280 PRO earphones; sound pressure level was adjusted to 60dBA with a DVM 401 decibel meter (Velleman, USA). A Cedrus StimTracker (Cedrus Corporation, San Pedro, CA) was used to ensure a minimal delay between the presentation of the stimulus to the participant and the marking of stimulus onset in the data.
Hd 280
Manufactured by Sennheiser
Sourced in United States
The HD 280 is a closed, circumaural headphone designed for professional audio monitoring. It features a frequency response of 8 Hz to 25 kHz, a sensitivity of 102 dB, and a maximum input power of 500 mW. The headphone is constructed with robust materials and includes a single-sided, coiled cable.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
22 protocols using hd 280
1
Forty Hertz Click Stimulation Protocol
2
Hearing Threshold Assessment Protocol
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Assessments of hearing thresholds were conducted using an Earscan 3 ES3S pure tone audiometer in line with the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Guidelines for Manual Pure-Tone Threshold Audiometry (2005) . Experiments were delivered using Presenta-tion© version X by a standard PC running Windows XP, on a 27-in. LED monitor (60 Hz). Sound stimuli were delivered binaurally via Sennheiser HD 280 professional headphones.
3
Multimodal Response Comparison in Auditory Perception
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Each participant completed the paradigm four times, each twice with verbal and manual response format, respectively. The order followed an AABB design, whereby the order was balanced (odd-even by order of recruitment) between individuals, so that n = 26 started with the verbal and n = 24 with the manual version. The setup and test procedure were parallelized at the two sites of data collection (Bergen and Oslo). The same audiometer system and headphone models (Sennheiser HD280) were used at both sites and testing took place in a quiet test room. However, differences in the exact equipment (i.e., computer build, keyboard) were unavoidable. While at both sites E-Prime (Psychology Software Tools, Sharpsburg, PA) was used to control the experiment, version 2.0 was available in Bergen and version 3.0 in Oslo. Nevertheless, we have no reason to believe that these equipment differences had a relevant effect on the present results. Firstly, the effects of interest in the present study are based on comparisons within participants. Secondly, exact timing was not critical as only accuracy and not reaction time data was used.
4
Verbal and Manual Response Formats
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Each participant completed the paradigm four times, each twice with verbal and manual response format, respectively. The order followed an AABB design, whereby the order was balanced (odd-even by order of recruitment) between individuals, so that n = 26 started with the verbal and n = 24 with the manual version. The setup and test procedure were parallelized at the two sites of data collection (Bergen and Oslo). The same audiometer system and headphone models (Sennheiser HD280) were used at both sites and testing took place in a quiet test room. However, differences in the exact equipment (i.e., computer build, keyboard) were unavoidable. While at both sites E-Prime (Psychology Software Tools, Sharpsburg, PA) was used to control the experiment, version 2.0 was available in Bergen and version 3.0 in Oslo. Nevertheless, we have no reason to believe that these equipment differences had a relevant effect on the present results. Firstly, the effects of interest in the present study are based on comparisons within participants. Secondly, exact timing was not critical as only accuracy and not reaction time data was used.
5
Evaluating Speech-in-Noise Perception
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The QuickSIN (Killion et al., 2004 (link)) provided a normed test of SIN perceptual abilities. Participants heard six sentences embedded in four-talker noise babble, each containing five keywords. Sentences were presented at 70 dB HL. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) decreased parametrically in 5 dB steps from 25 dB SNR to 0 dB SNR. At each SNR, participants were instructed to repeat the sentence and correctly recalled keywords were logged. We computed their SNR loss by subtracting the number of recalled target words from 25.5 (i.e., SNR loss = 25.5-Total Correct). The QuickSIN was presented binaurally via Sennheiser HD 280 circumaural headphones. Two lists were run and the second was used in subsequent analysis to avoid familiarization effects (Yoo and Bidelman, 2019 (link); Bidelman and Yoo, 2020 (link)).
6
Probe-Tone Ratings of Bohlen-Pierce Melodies
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Participants. Ninety-six undergraduates at the University of California at Berkeley participated in this experiment in return for course credit. All participants reported having normal hearing and were unselected for musical training. Each participant was randomly assigned to an exposure condition. After providing written informed consent, participants were tested in a sound-attenuated room while facing a Dell desktop PC running Max/MSP software (Zicarelli, 1998) . Stimuli were presented at approximately 70 dB through Sennheiser HD 280 headphones. All data and code used in analysis are available on https://osf.io/pjkq2/.
Procedure. The experiment was conducted in three phases: 1) pre-exposure probe-tone ratings test, 2) exposure phase, and 3) post-exposure probe-tone ratings test.
1. Pre-exposure probe-tone ratings test: Thirteen trials were conducted in this phase. In each trial, participants were presented with a melody in the Bohlen-Pierce scale, followed by a tone (Krumhansl, 1991) . Participants' task was to rate how well the last tone (i.e. the probe tone) fit the preceding melody, on a scale of 1 (least fitting) to 7 (best fitting).
Procedure. The experiment was conducted in three phases: 1) pre-exposure probe-tone ratings test, 2) exposure phase, and 3) post-exposure probe-tone ratings test.
1. Pre-exposure probe-tone ratings test: Thirteen trials were conducted in this phase. In each trial, participants were presented with a melody in the Bohlen-Pierce scale, followed by a tone (Krumhansl, 1991) . Participants' task was to rate how well the last tone (i.e. the probe tone) fit the preceding melody, on a scale of 1 (least fitting) to 7 (best fitting).
7
Multimodal Sensory Stimuli Characterization
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The memoranda were simple, non-verbal stimuli that were matched in terms of stimulus exposure time (1 s), temporal dynamics (the stimuli did not vary over time), and discriminability at short retention intervals (described below). Auditory stimuli consisted of pure tones presented binaurally through headphones at approximately 75 dB (HD-280, Sennheiser Electronic Corporation, Old Lyme, CT), visual stimuli consisted of red squares (14 cm) presented against a white background on an LCD monitor positioned approximately 20 cm in front of the subject at eye level (∼38° viewing angle), and tactile stimuli consisted of vibrations presented through a vertical aluminum bar which the subjects gripped with their left hand. The vibrotactile stimuli were produced by passing a digitally-generated sine wave through a tactile transducer (TST209, Clark Synthesis, Inc., Highlands Ranch, CO). The vibrations were generated at a very low intensity to ensure that they were not audible to the subjects (acceleration values measured from the surface of the bar: 0.8±0.1; VM-6360 digital vibration meter, Landtek Instruments, Guangzhou, China). Inaudibility was confirmed with a sound level meter (407740, Extech Instruments Corporation, Nashua, NH), which did not detect change in sound pressure level produced by the vibration stimuli above the ambient noise in the room (35–36 dB).
8
Automated and Manual Audiogram Comparison
9
Measuring Speech-in-Noise Thresholds
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The QuickSIN provided a normed test of SIN reception thresholds. Participants heard six sentences embedded in four-talker noise babble, each containing five keywords. Sentences were presented at 70 dB HL. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) decreased parametrically in 5 dB steps from 25 to 0 dB SNR. At each SNR, participants were instructed to repeat the sentence, and correctly recalled keywords were logged. We computed their SNR loss by subtracting the number of recalled target words from 25.5 (i.e., SNR loss = 25.5 - total correct). The QuickSIN was presented binaurally via Sennheiser HD 280 circumaural headphones. Two lists were run, and the second was used in subsequent analysis to avoid familiarization effects (Yoo and Bidelman, 2019 (link)).
10
Visual and Auditory Distraction Paradigm
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!