Comparative Intelligibility of Word Lists and Continuous Discourse

1963 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Giolas ◽  
Aubrey Epstein
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Tape ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Frequency Filtering ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Central Institute ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
Recording Conditions ◽  
Intelligibility Score

Intelligibility scores on Harvard Phonetically Balanced (PB-50) Word Lists, Central Institute for the Deaf (W-22) Monosyllabic Word Lists, and a sample of continuous discourse were compared. Speech samples were recorded on magnetic tape under seven high frequency filtering conditions. One-hundred and seventy-five normally hearing subjects were divided into seven groups, each group listening to all speech samples under one particular condition of filtering. Word lists were scored in terms of number of words correct and the continuous discourse in terms of items correct on a test covering information presented in the continuous discourse. The following results were obtained: (1) Consistently higher scores were achieved with the W-22 word lists than with the PB-50 word lists, even when the influence of dissimilar recordings was eliminated. Such differences were attributed to a combination of differences in list content and recording conditions. (2) Monosyllabic word lists and continuous discourse are affected in the same way by frequency distortion; that is, errors increase as distortion increases. (3) No accurate intelligibility score prediction for the continuous discourse could be made on the basis of scores obtained on the PB-50 and W-22 lists.

Test of the Assumptions Underlying Comparative Hearing Aid Evaluations

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 264-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Laura L. Holum-Hardegen ◽  
Joanne M. Crowley ◽  
Daniel M. Schwartz ◽  
Dennis L. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Good Predictor ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Impairments ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Performance Differences ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
Significant Performance ◽  
Predictor Of Success

Comparative hearing aid evaluations using NU-6 monosyllabic word lists were administered to adults with predominately high-frequency sensorineural hearing impairments who were randomly assigned to one of two experiments. In the first, three instruments were used that were electroacoustically similar and appropriate to the patients' hearing losses. In the second, the three hearing aids employed were electroacoustically quite different. Following an initial comparative hearing aid evaluation, the patients used the instruments during a trial-use week after which they ranked the aids in terms of benefit provided in daily communication. Following the trial-use week, the comparative hearing aid evaluation was repeated. The results suggest that significant interaid performance differences on the hearing aid evaluation are not likely to occur very often when the aids being evaluated are relatively homogeneous electroacoustically. In contrast, when electroacoustically heterogeneous instruments are evaluated, significant performance differences may occur frequently. Under such circumstance, however, the same instrument(s) would likely provide the best performance to most patients. The results further suggest that the reliability of standard monosyllabic word lists may not be adequate to detect typical interaid differences that occur in a comparative hearing aid evaluation and that the performance hierarchy is likely to change as the patient adjusts amplification. Finally, the comparative hearing aid evaluation will not be a good predictor of success in daily communication unless relatively large performance differences exist among the instruments.

A Comparison of Recognition Performances in Speech-Spectrum Noise by Listeners with Normal Hearing on PB-50, CID W-22, NU–6, W-1 Spondaic Words, and Monosyllabic Digits Spoken by the Same Speaker

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (06) ◽  
pp. 496-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Rachel McArdle ◽  
Heidi Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Psychometric Characteristics ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
Monosyllabic Words ◽  
Speech Spectrum

Background: So that portions of the classic Miller, Heise, and Lichten (1951) study could be replicated, new recorded versions of the words and digits were made because none of the three common monosyllabic word lists (PAL PB-50, CID W-22, and NU–6) contained the 9 monosyllabic digits (1–10, excluding 7) that were used by Miller et al. It is well established that different psychometric characteristics have been observed for different lists and even for the same materials spoken by different speakers. The decision was made to record four lists of each of the three monosyllabic word sets, the monosyllabic digits not included in the three sets of word lists, and the CID W-1 spondaic words. A professional female speaker with a General American dialect recorded the materials during four recording sessions within a 2-week interval. The recording order of the 582 words was random. Purpose: To determine—on listeners with normal hearing—the psychometric properties of the five speech materials presented in speech-spectrum noise. Research Design: A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used. Study Sample: Twenty-four young adult listeners (M = 23 years) with normal pure-tone thresholds (≤20-dB HL at 250 to 8000 Hz) participated. The participants were university students who were unfamiliar with the test materials. Data Collection and Analysis: The 582 words were presented at four signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs; −7-, −2-, 3-, and 8-dB) in speech-spectrum noise fixed at 72-dB SPL. Although the main metric of interest was the 50% point on the function for each word established with the Spearman-Kärber equation (Finney, 1952), the percentage correct on each word at each SNR was evaluated. The psychometric characteristics of the PB-50, CID W-22, and NU–6 monosyllabic word lists were compared with one another, with the CID W-1 spondaic words, and with the 9 monosyllabic digits. Results: Recognition performance on the four lists within each of the three monosyllabic word materials were equivalent, ±0.4 dB. Likewise, word-recognition performance on the PB-50, W-22, and NU–6 word lists were equivalent, ±0.2 dB. The mean recognition performance at the 50% point with the 36 W-1 spondaic words was ˜6.2 dB lower than the 50% point with the monosyllabic words. Recognition performance on the monosyllabic digits was 1–2 dB better than mean performance on the monosyllabic words. Conclusions: Word-recognition performances on the three sets of materials (PB-50, CID W-22, and NU–6) were equivalent, as were the performances on the four lists that make up each of the three materials. Phonetic/phonemic balance does not appear to be an important consideration in the compilation of word-recognition lists used to evaluate the ability of listeners to understand speech.A companion paper examines the acoustic, phonetic/phonological, and lexical variables that may predict the relative ease or difficulty for which these monosyllable words were recognized in noise (McArdle and Wilson, this issue).

scholarly journals Speech Perception with two Monosyllabic Word Lists in Cochlear Implant Users: the CI 2004 Monosyllable Lists and 67-S Lists

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuke Matsuda ◽  
Takumi Okuda ◽  
Takahiro Nakashima ◽  
Miho Shirane ◽  
Shoken Shimoara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Word Lists

Cochlear Implantation in Children with Postlingual Progressive Steeply Sloping High-Frequency Hearing Loss

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 913-919 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret A. Meredith ◽  
Jay T. Rubinstein ◽  
Kathleen C. Y. Sie ◽  
Susan J. Norton
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Hearing Preservation ◽  
Rapid Improvement ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Monosyllabic Word

Background: Children with steeply sloping sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) lack access to critical high-frequency cues despite the use of advanced hearing aid technology. In addition, their auditory-only aided speech perception abilities often meet Food and Drug Administration criteria for cochlear implantation. Purpose: The objective of this study was to describe hearing preservation and speech perception outcomes in a group of young children with steeply sloping SNHL who received a cochlear implant (CI). Research Design: Retrospective case series. Study Sample: Eight children with steeply sloping postlingual progressive SNHL who received a unilateral traditional CI at Seattle Children’s Hospital between 2009 and 2013 and had follow-up data available up to 24 mo postimplant were included. Data Collection and Analysis: A retrospective chart review was completed. Medical records were reviewed for demographic information, preoperative and postoperative behavioral hearing thresholds, and speech perception scores. Paired t tests were used to analyze speech perception data. Hearing preservation results are reported. Results: Rapid improvement of speech perception scores was observed within the first month postimplant for all participants. Mean monosyllabic word scores were 76% and mean phoneme scores were 86.7% at 1-mo postactivation compared to mean preimplant scores of 19.5% and 31.0%, respectively. Hearing preservation was observed in five participants out to 24-mo postactivation. Two participants lost hearing in both the implanted and unimplanted ear, and received a sequential bilateral CI in the other ear after progression of the hearing loss. One participant had a total loss of hearing in only the implanted ear. Results reported in this article are from the ear implanted first. Bilateral outcomes are not reported. Conclusions: CIs provided benefit for children with steeply sloping bilateral hearing loss for whom hearing aids did not provide adequate auditory access. In our cohort, significant improvements in speech understanding occurred rapidly postactivation. Preservation of residual hearing in children with a traditional CI electrode is possible.

Pediatric Arabic Closed-Set Word-Recognition Test: Development and Evaluation of Psychometric Characteristics

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (08) ◽  
pp. 547-554
Author(s):  
Soha N. Garadat ◽  
Ana'am Alkharabsheh ◽  
Nihad A. Almasri ◽  
Abdulrahman Hagr
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Hearing Level ◽  
Sigmoid Function ◽  
Psychometric Characteristics ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Closed Set ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
Arabic Speaking

Abstract Background Speech audiometry materials are widely available in many different languages. However, there are no known standardized materials for the assessment of speech recognition in Arabic-speaking children. Purpose The aim of the study was to develop and validate phonetically balanced and psychometrically equivalent monosyllabic word recognition lists for children through a picture identification task. Research Design A prospective repeated-measure design was used. Monosyllabic words were chosen from children's storybooks and were evaluated for familiarity. The selected words were then divided into four phonetically balanced word lists. The final lists were evaluated for homogeneity and equivalency. Study Sample Ten adults and 32 children with normal hearing sensitivity were recruited. Data Collection and Analyses Lists were presented to adult subjects in 5 dB increment from 0 to 60 dB hearing level. Individual data were then fitted using a sigmoid function from which the 50% threshold, slopes at the 50% points, and slopes at the 20 to 80% points were derived to determine list psychometric properties. Lists were next presented to children in two separate sessions to assess their equivalency, validity, and reliability. Data were subjected to a mixed design analysis of variance. Results No statistically significant difference was found among the word lists. Conclusion This study provided an evidence that the monosyllabic word lists had comparable psychometric characteristics and reliability. This supports that the constructed speech corpus is a valid tool that can be used in assessing speech recognition in Arabic-speaking children.

Phonetically balanced and psychometrically equivalent monosyllabic word lists for word recognition testing in Thai

2015 ◽  
Vol 138 (3) ◽  
pp. 1831-1831
Author(s):  
Sajeerat Poonyaban ◽  
Pasinee Aungsakulchai ◽  
Charturong Tantibundhit ◽  
Chutamanee Onsuwan ◽  
Rattinan Tiravanitchakul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
Recognition Testing
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document