Comparison of clinical and traditional gap detection tests

Eric Hoover*, Lauren Pasquesi, Pamela Souza

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

28 Scopus citations


Background: Temporal resolution is important for speech recognition and may contribute to variability in speech recognition among patients. Clinical tests of temporal resolution are available, but it is not clear how closely results of those tests correspond to results of traditional temporal resolution tests. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the Gaps-in-Noise (GIN) test to a traditional measure of gap detection. Study Sample: This study included older adults with hearing loss and younger adults with normal hearing. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed one practice and two test blocks of each gap detection test, and a measure of speech-in-noise recognition. Individual data were correlated to examine the relationship between the tests. Results: The GIN and traditional gap detection were significantly, but not highly correlated. The traditional gap detection test contributed to variance in speech recognition in noise, while the GIN did not. Conclusions: The brevity and ease of implementing the GIN in the clinic make it a viable test of temporal resolution. However, it differs from traditional measures in implementation, and as a result relies on different cognitive factors. The GIN thresholds should be interpreted carefully and not presumed to represent an approximation of traditional gap detection thresholds.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)540-546
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Audiology
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 1 2015


  • Age
  • Gap detection
  • Hearing loss
  • Temporal resolution

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Speech and Hearing


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of clinical and traditional gap detection tests'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this