Reply Frankly, we are confused about the impetus for Arehole’s response to our article. She appears to focus on two points: our presentation of her data and our subject pool. It appeared appropriate to include her data because both sets had been obtained using the Grason-Stadler GSI-10 clinical audiometer. Her MLD ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   March 01, 1998
Reply
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Robert F. Oyler
    East Tennessee State University, Johnson City
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   March 01, 1998
Reply
American Journal of Audiology, March 1998, Vol. 7, 48. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0701.48
 
American Journal of Audiology, March 1998, Vol. 7, 48. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0701.48
Frankly, we are confused about the impetus for Arehole’s response to our article. She appears to focus on two points: our presentation of her data and our subject pool.
It appeared appropriate to include her data because both sets had been obtained using the Grason-Stadler GSI-10 clinical audiometer. Her MLD values were neither “deduced” nor “inferred”; they were simply estimated from the available presentations and publications (Arehole, 1992, 1995, 1996). As a matter of record, the data presentation in each of these cases was limited to bar graphs. To the best of our knowledge, Arehole’s response to our article is the first time that these data have been presented in any other format.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access