The present review attempts to cover all areas which are of current con cern to the psychologist who is interested in understanding the nature of reactions to auditory stimuli. Since a great deal of chopping and compression has been necessary to produce a paper of reasonable length, the reviewer can only hope that the contributions do not themselves appear LiIIiputian.No attempt wiII be made to review the many papers on surgical proce dures for restoration of hearing. However, for the reader with special interest in this area, two issues of the Archives of Otolaryngology (October and Novem ber, 1963) were devoted entirely to "Reconstructive Middle Ear Surgery." Moncur & Goodhill (153) lament the lack of precise data and statistics in many of the reports on evaluation of surgical procedures. One must read this literature with the appropriate set: One otologist (85) expresses a preference for "graftless" stapedectomy, and praises a prominent surgeon as a "mag nificen t opera tor."
SIGNAL DETECTIONHuman threshold measurement.-Corso (56) has provided a history of the concept of threshold. He has also (57) presented detailed data on normal thresholds of hearing for pure tones on an age-stratified sample of subjects drawn from a population exposed to minimal levels of industrial noise. In an other study, Corso (58) has determined bone-conduction thresholds for fre-. quencies up to 95 kc. The subjects were presumably responding to auditory sensations, but no discussion is given as to exactly what they heard at thresh. old for the ultrasonic stimuli. Stein & Zerlin (219) show that markedly higher thresholds at low frequencies may be produced by use of a circum. aural earphone.Animal threshold measuremenf.-Wever, Crowley & Peterson (258) have used the cochlear potential to measure auditory sensitivity in four species of lizards, while Wollack (263) has used avoidance conditioning to measure auditory thresholds in sheep. Clack & Herman (50) describe a single lever technique for rapid determination of auditory threshold in the monkey; and Clack & Harris (49) describe application of a two-level technique (Blough method) for investigation of auditory thresholds in the rat. Semenoff & Young (209) compared the auditory tonal thresholds of man and monkey (Macaca nemestrina), using earphones, and found that the audiograms of both species were similar in form.1 The survey of literature pertaining to this review was completed in April 1964. 2 The following abbreviations will be used: DL, difference limen; GSR, galvanic skin response; ROC, receiver-operating characteristic; SL, sensation level ; SPL. sound pressure level; TTS, temporary threshold shift.
325Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1965.16:325-358. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Saskatchewan on 02/06/15. For personal use only. Quick links to online content Further ANNUAL REVIEWS Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1965.16:325-358. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Saskatchewan on 02/06/15. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Psy...