Effective Vowel Stimuli for Measuring Occlusion Effect in the Pediatric Population
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript reports on some measurements of the occlusion effect in the ear canals of children and adults. The occlusion effect is relevant for clinical audiology, and the manuscript states that it is less well understood for children than for adults. For those reasons the topic of the manuscript is potentially interesting and important to audiologists. However, one concern is that the measurements reported here are not as clearly described as they should be. A second related concern is that some of the results exhibit unusual patterns. At best, these require more explanation. The Specific Comments below address those concerns.
Specific comments:
line 92: Here and in Fig. 2, the upper frequency cutoff appears to be 1000 Hz. But line 114 and Table 1 give the cutoff as 1500 Hz. Why is there an inconsistency? Why were higher frequencies excluded from the measurements?
Fig. 2 and Table 1: Nothing in the text suggests that these are different measurements, but obviously they do not match, either in overall level or the shape of the spectra. What is the difference? Also, the spectra in Fig. 2 do not show as much difference between vowels as one would expect. Is there an explanation for that?
Fig. 3: The data for children are so similar to the data for adults that on first glance, I thought that the same data had erroneously been plotted twice. It seems highly unlikely that the pattern of F1 across individuals would be virtually identical for children and adults. The data in the figure also do not seem to match the numbers in Table 4, where there are clear age differences. It's also surprising that the children's vocalizations would be less variable across utterances than adults. Are these data correct, and if so, what is the explanation for the similarity?
Author Response
Review-1
Title and Reference: Effective Vowel Stimuli to Measure Occlusion Effect Among the Pediatric Population ref ohbm-2482926
The manuscript reports on some measurements of the occlusion effect in the ear canals of children and adults. The occlusion effect is relevant for clinical audiology, and the manuscript states that it is less well understood for children than for adults. For those reasons the topic of the manuscript is potentially interesting and important to audiologists. However, one concern is that the measurements reported here are not as clearly described as they should be.
The measurement reported is edited for clear description (line no. 112 to 167)
A second related concern is that some of the results exhibit unusual patterns.
The figures and Tables previously given were not reated. The figures are replotted, which is explained in the specific comments.
Specific comments:
line 92: Here and in Fig. 2, the upper-frequency cutoff appears to be 1000 Hz. But line 114 and Table 1 give the cutoff as 1500 Hz. Why is there an inconsistency? Why were higher frequencies excluded from the measurements?
The upper cutoff frequency in the figure and in the table is now matched by keeping it at 1000 Hz. Occlusion effect observed in low frequency, so we have restricted upper cutoff frequency at 1000Hz.
Fig. 2 and Table 1: Nothing in the text suggests that these are different measurements, but obviously they do not match, either in overall level or the shape of the spectra. What is the difference? Also, the spectra in Fig. 2 do not show as much difference between vowels as one would expect. Is there an explanation for that?
Figure-2 is replotted. Figure 2 and Table-1-3 data are the same. After replotting, we can see the difference between vowels in children and adults.
Fig. 3: The data for children are so similar to the data for adults that on first glance, I thought that the same data had erroneously been plotted twice. It seems highly unlikely that the pattern of F1 across individuals would be virtually identical for children and adults. The data in the figure also do not seem to match the numbers in Table 4, where there are clear age differences. It's also surprising that the children's vocalizations would be less variable across utterances than adults. Are these data correct, and if so, what is the explanation for the similarity?
The data in Figure 3 is reanalyzed and is now replotted in the box plot. Now, we can see the variability in the F1 in both adults and children. Now the Figure 3 and the Table-4 are matching.
Reviewer 2 Report
a couple of typing errors :
formaNt in line 63 and 64 ;
line 93: 65(space)dB(space)SPL;
line 97 : producing ;
line 110 : formant ;
(in fig.1 block diagram) receiver
Fig.2 versus Fig. 3 : might be better place in the same order Children and then Adults in the two figures, to match with subsequent figures and tables
and use capital in each: Subjects and Subjects
line 232 : & (instead of "and") - same at line 243
line 255 : 371(space)Hz and 264(space)Hz
line 258 : & instead of "and"
line 278 : & instead of "and" - same at line 280 and line 282
Good English language , only minor typing errors to edit
Author Response
Review-2
Title and Reference: Effective Vowel Stimuli to Measure Occlusion Effect Among the Pediatric Population ref ohbm-2482926
A couple of typing errors :
- formaNt in line 63 and 64;
Spelling corrected
- line 93: 65(space)dB(space)SPL;
Space provided
- line 97 : producing ;
incorporated
- line 110 : formant ;
spelling corrected
- (in fig.1 block diagram) receiver
Spelling corrected
- 2 versus Fig. 3 : might be better place in the same order Children and then Adults in the two figures, to match with subsequent figures and tables and Subjects
Corrected line no. 143
- line 232 : & (instead of "and") - same at line 243
Corrected line no. 243
- line 255 : 371(space)Hz and 264(space)Hz
Corrected line no. 255
- line 258 : & instead of "and"
Corrected line no. 258
- line 278 : & instead of "and" - same at line 280 and line 282
Corrected line no. 278, 280 and line 282.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The data presented in the revised manuscript do not always match what was presented originally, so it is difficult to be completely confident about the results. I had concerns about the data in the original Fig. 3. That figure was redrawn in the revised manuscript, but the changes in the figure did not address my concern. In fact, the new version hides the pattern in the data that I had hoped would be explained. This change did not improve the manuscript.
No concerns
Author Response
Review-1
Title and Reference: Effective Vowel Stimuli to Measure Occlusion Effect Among the Pediatric Population ref ohbm-2482926
The data presented in the revised manuscript do not always match what was presented originally, so it is difficult to be completely confident about the results. I had concerns about the data in the original Fig. 3. That figure was redrawn in the revised manuscript, but the changes in the figure did not address my concern. In fact, the new version hides the pattern in the data that I had hoped would be explained. This change did not improve the manuscript.
Thank you for pointing out this. We completely agree the reviewer’s comment. We accept that it was a major typographic mistake while pasting the graph in the first manuscript where the both the graph of adults and children were the same. At the same time, we had not provided the data on descriptive statistics with an intention that the same data would duplicate both in graph and Table. Therefore, it would have naturally made the reviewer not to be completely confident on the results. However, we have corrected the graph 3 which now shows a clear difference in the formant frequency between children and adults. For further clarity on the results, we have also included the mean, median, and standard deviation values of F1 (in Hz) with the pre-existed inferential statistics in Table 4 so that the reader can easily correlate the data presented in the graph 3 as well as the table 4.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
My concerns have been addressed by the modifications to Figure 3.
Author Response
Changes made in manuscript as in response to the editor’s comments
Comment 1: Figs 2 and 3 belong to the Results section: this is data obtained from the study population and therefore does nót belong to methodology or procedures.
Changes incorporated: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised the manuscript and have replaced the Figure 2 and 3 from method to the results section.
Comment 2: line 139: change text 'in the step of 100 Hz' into: 'steps of 100 Hz'.
Changes incorporated: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have made these changes throughout the manuscript.
Comment 3: despite the previous comments of the 1st reviewer, I still see errors in Fig 3: it seems that Figs 3a and 3b are mixed up in the text: looking at Fig 3a, this is adult data and 3b children? Please change it in conformity with text ánd legend!.
Changes incorporated: Thank you for this suggestion. In response to this comment, the errors in the figures 3a and 3b have been corrected.
Comment 4: line 175: please add a sentence how the presentation level of 65 dB SPL was controlled exactly?
Changes incorporated: In response to this observation, the details on how the presentation level was controlled at 65 dB SPL has been added under experiment 2, line 171 to 173.
Comment 5: line 178: I suppose that a possible increase of loudness level was based on the second vowel compared to the first vowel of a pair? If so, please add the word 'second' ('second vowel') avoid any misunderstandings.
Changes incorporated: Authors like to clarify that some vowel pairs could have higher loudness in the first vowel and some vowel pairs with higher loudness only in second vowel. For illustration, in the vowel pair of /i/ and /a/, the first vowel will be relatively louder than the second vowel. However, in the vowel pair of /a/ and /u/, the second vowel will be relatively louder than the first vowel. If the participant correctly identified the vowel with higher loudness among the vowel pair (/i/ and /a/), a score of one was assigned [ex: /i/ =1and /a/ =0]. The same details have been provided in analysis part under experiment 2, line 175 to 180.
Comment 6: line 180: mention what was the score when both vowels were judged as equal? If this was never judged, please mention this in an extra sentence.
Changes incorporated: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In response to this comment, relevant modifications have been incorporated in the last line of the analysis subsection under Experiment 2, Line 180-182.
Comment 7: line 281: change the word 'greater' into 'higher' (it refers to a level of sound pressure).
Changes incorporated: Thank you for this suggestion. The necessary modification has been done throughout the manuscript.
