IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0114553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agreement and Reliability of Tinnitus Loudness Matching and Pitch Likeness Rating

Author

Listed:
  • Derek J Hoare
  • Mark Edmondson-Jones
  • Phillip E Gander
  • Deborah A Hall

Abstract

The ability to reproducibly match tinnitus loudness and pitch is important to research and clinical management. Here we examine agreement and reliability of tinnitus loudness matching and pitch likeness ratings when using a computer-based method to measure the tinnitus spectrum and estimate a dominant tinnitus pitch, using tonal or narrowband sounds. Group level data indicated a significant effect of time between test session 1 and 2 for loudness matching, likely procedural or perceptual learning, which needs to be accounted in study design. Pitch likeness rating across multiple frequencies appeared inherently more variable and with no systematic effect of time. Dominant pitch estimates reached a level of clinical acceptability when sessions were spaced two weeks apart. However when dominant tinnitus pitch assessments were separated by three months, acceptable agreement was achieved only for group mean data, not for individual estimates. This has implications for prescription of some sound-based interventions that rely on accurate measures of individual dominant tinnitus pitch.

Suggested Citation

  • Derek J Hoare & Mark Edmondson-Jones & Phillip E Gander & Deborah A Hall, 2014. "Agreement and Reliability of Tinnitus Loudness Matching and Pitch Likeness Rating," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-18, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114553
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114553
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114553&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0114553?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114553. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.