Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 261

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Gap detection and the precedence effect in young and old adults

Schneider, Bruce A., Pichora-Fuller, Margaret Kathleen, Kowalchuk, Danielle, Lamb, Morag·1994·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Abstract

Thresholds for detecting a gap between two Gaussian-enveloped (standard deviation=0.5 ms), 2-kHz tones were determined in young and old listeners. The gap-detection thresholds of old adults were more variable and about twice as large as those obtained from young adults. Moreover, gap-detection thresholds were not correlated with audiometric thresholds in either group. Estimates of the width of the temporal window of young subjects, based on the detection of a gap between two tone pips, were smaller than those typically obtained when a relatively long duration pure tone is interrupted [Moore et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85, 1266–1275 (1989)]. Because the amount of time it takes to recover from an adapting stimulus is likely to affect gap detection thresholds [Glasberg et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 81, 1546–1556 (1987)], smaller estimates of temporal window size would be expected in this paradigm if the amount of adaptation produced by the first tone pip was negligible. The larger gap-detection thresholds of old subjects indicate that they may have larger temporal windows than young subjects. The lack of correlation between audiometric and gap-detection thresholds indicates that this loss of temporal acuity is not related to the degree of sensorineural hearing loss. In a second experiment on the precedence effect using the same subjects, a Gaussian-enveloped tone was presented over earphones to the left ear followed by the same tone pip presented to the right ear. To more realistically approximate a sound field situation, the tone pip presented to each ear was followed 0.6 ms later by an attenuated version presented to the contralateral ear. The delay between the left- and right-ear tone-pips was varied and the transition point between hearing a single tone on the left, and hearing two such sounds in close succession (one coming from the left and the other from the right) was determined. The transition point in this experiment did not differ between young and old subjects nor were these transition points correlated with gap-detection thresholds. These results indicate that monaural temporal acuity and binaural echo suppression may be based on different processes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/1.408403

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 261

Metadata

Authors
Schneider, B. A., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Kowalchuk, D., & Lamb, M.
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Published
1994-02-01
Volume
95
Issue
2
Pages
980-991
ISSN
  • 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8524
OpenAlex
W1969729270
Cited by
261
References
0
FWCI
1.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gap detection and the precedence effect in young and old adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1121/1.408403
The paper
Schneider, B. A., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Kowalchuk, D., & Lamb, M. (1994). Gap detection and the precedence effect in young and old adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.408403

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.