Reliability of the Modified Rhyme Test for Hearing

1972 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald W. Bell ◽  
E. James Kreul ◽  
James C. Nixon
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Present State ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Adequate Knowledge ◽  
Response Set ◽  
Modified Rhyme Test ◽  
Normal Performance ◽  
Reliability Coefficients

The reliability and intercorrelations of selected lists from the clinical version of the Modified Rhyme Test (MRT) were examined using normal-hearing young listeners and older listeners believed to have incurred noise-induced hearing loss. Stability of means and variances was generally acceptable for the lists of the MRT, but the reliability coefficients and intercorrelations were generally low. In its present state, the clinical MRT appears to lack the precision to discriminate among normal young listeners, if normal young listeners really do differ in speech discrimination ability with a closed response set. We do not yet have adequate knowledge of the range of expected normal performance for the MRT. The MRT appears far more reliable when used with a much more heterogeneous hearing loss population.

Evaluation of Modified Rhyme Test Results from Impaired- and Normal-Hearing Listeners

1971 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 589-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Earleen F. Elkins
Keyword(s):  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Normal Limits ◽  
Difficult Condition ◽  
Male Speaker ◽  
Speech Reception Thresholds ◽  
Modified Rhyme Test

Four lists of the Modified Rhyme Test (MRT) were administered to 9 normal-hearing and 50 impaired-hearing subjects. The stimuli were spoken by a male speaker with test conditions designed to yield 96, 83, 75, and 96% correct responses by normal listeners. Normal subjects performed within the expected normal limits. Impaired-hearing subjects had significantly lower scores and did not show the proportional decrease for the most difficult condition. The performance of subjects grouped by degree of hearing loss showed that increasing noise did not affect MRT scores differentially, nor did MRT scores decrease significantly with increasing speech reception thresholds (SRTs). When a slight amount of noise accompanied the MRT, a significant relationship was shown with clinically obtained W-22 scores. Correlational analysis among five measures of speech-discrimination ability and six measures of threshold sensitivity supported other studies with regard to the frequency region important for the perception of monosyllabic stimuli at suprathreshold levels.

Loudness Discomfort Level Modification

1969 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 807-817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry D. Schmitz
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
High Intensity ◽  
The Other ◽  
Behavioral Modification ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Adjustment Problems ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Sound Exposure ◽  
Cochlear Hearing Loss

Three assumptions involved in the rationale for loudness tolerance modification were investigated: (1) that an abnormal loudness discomfort level (LDL) is modifiable by sub-LDL stimulation, (2) that a relationship exists between abnormal LDL and reduced speech discrimination ability, and (3) that an improved LDL will result in better speech discrimination than evidenced before such modification. Twenty subjects with functional evidence of bilateral cochlear hearing loss were divided into four group. Each of three groups received a different type of sound exposure and the other groups served as a control. LDLs were determined before, interjacent to, and after exposure. No significant changes in LDL were found for any of the experimental groups. The parabolic articulation function associated in the literature with monaural cochlear lesions was absent for all cases. Sub-LDL exposure to high intensity speech does not appear to be an effective modifier of an abnormal LDL. The rationale for loudness discomfort level modification therapy, namely to improve speech discrimination, appears to be unwarranted. Abnormal loudness discomfort improvement may involve adjustment problems more responsive to behavioral modification approaches.

Frequency-Discrimination Ability of Hearing-Impaired Listeners

1981 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. M. Zurek ◽  
C. Formby
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Frequency Modulation ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Frequency Discrimination ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity

Thresholds for frequency modulation were measured by an adaptive, two-alternative, forced-choice method with ten listeners: eight who showed varying degrees of sensorineural hearing impairment, and two with normal-hearing sensitivity. Results for test frequencies spaced at octave intervals between 125 and 4000 Hz showed that, relative to normal-hearing listeners, the ability of the hearing-impaired listeners to detect a sinusoidal frequency modulation: (1) is diminished above a certain level of hearing loss; and (2) is more disrupted for low-frequency tones than for high-frequency tones, given the same degree of hearing loss at the test frequency. The first finding is consistent with that of previous studies which show a general deterioration of frequency-discrimination ability associated with moderate, or worse, hearing loss. It is proposed that the second finding may be explained: 1) by differential impairment of the temporal and place mechanisms presumed to, encode pitch at the lower and higher frequencies, respectively; and/or, 2) for certain configurations of hearing loss, by the asymmetrical pattern of cochlear excitation that may lead to the underestimation, from measurements of threshold sensitivity, of hearing impairment for low-frequency tones and consequently to relatively large changes in frequency discrimination for small shifts in hearing threshold.

Earmold Influence on Aided Speech Identification Tasks

1970 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 162-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry L. Northern ◽  
Karl W. Hattler
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Ear Canal ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Comfortable Loudness ◽  
Modified Rhyme Test ◽  
Speech Identification

The physical characteristics of hearing aids are modified when the instrument is coupled with an earmold and fitted to an ear canal. This study compares the electroacoustic characteristics of four specific earmold variations with behavioral speech audiometric tasks in five normal-hearing and seven sensorineural-hearing-loss subjects. Speech-Bekesy thresholds were obtained under each earmold condition with continuous discourse for detectability, intelligibility, most comfortable loudness, and tolerance. Speech discrimination ability was evaluated with the Modified Rhyme Test in three signal-to-noise ratio conditions. Significant differences in test scores attributable to earmold modification were difficult to demonstrate, in spite of the fact that substantial variations in the ear inserts were readily apparent in both structural and electroacoustics analysis.

Noise Exposure, Hearing Loss, Speech Discrimination and Tinnitus

1984 ◽  
Vol 98 (S9) ◽  
pp. 74-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurice H. Miller ◽  
John R. Jakimetz
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Complete Recovery ◽  
Clinical Situation ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Essentially Normal ◽  
Word Discrimination

Noise exposure in the workplace and the recreational environment probably accounts for more new cases of tinnitus and hearing loss than all other causes combined. To an increasing degree, preemployment audiograms of late teenagers and those in their early twenties show noise-induced, sensorineural ‘notches’ greatest at 4000 or 6000 Hz with partial or complete recovery at 8000 Hz. Word discrimination tests, as typically evaluated in a clinical situation, show essentially normal findings although more difficult measures of consonant discriminations such as the California Consonant Test or conventional speech tests in a background of noise often demonstrate impaired word discrimination ability.

Evaluation of The Speech Perception in Noise (Spin) Test

1979 ◽  
Vol 87 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Hutcherson ◽  
Donald D. Dirks ◽  
Donald E. Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Speech Communication ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Presentation Level

Several investigations were performed with normal hearing subjects to determine the effects of presentation level and signal-to-babble ratio on the speech perception in noise (SPIN) test. The SPIN test contains sentences that simulate a range of contextual situations encountered in everyday speech communication. Findings from several representative patients with sensorineural hearing loss demonstrate the possible clinical utility of the test to measure the effects of context on speech discrimination.

An Item-Difficulty Based Speech Discrimination Test

1971 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 865-873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Margolis ◽  
Joseph P. Millin
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Frequency Distribution ◽  
Item Difficulty ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Speech Discrimination Tests ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Poorly Differentiated

In an attempt to improve the differentiating ability of monosyllabic speech discrimination tests, two equivalent, 25-word test recordings with rectilinear distributions of item difficulty were constructed from W-22 Hirsh recordings. These lists and selected half lists of the standard W-22 recordings were then presented to 40 ears of listeners with losses ranging in severity from -10 dB to 60 dB (SRT) at sensation levels of 20, 30, 40, and 50 dB. Scores obtained with the new lists describe a less skewed frequency distribution than those obtained with the W-22 half lists. The new recordings were also more successful in differentiating between subjects with varying levels of sensorineural hearing losses, particularly between normal-hearing listeners and listeners with mild loss, who are usually poorly differentiated by W-22 tests. This was accomplished without resorting to deliberate distortion of stimulus words. These new recordings appear to have clinical usefulness in their ability to more accurately reflect differences in discrimination ability among listeners and particularly in their ability to reveal reduced discrimination in mild sensorineural hearing loss.

Analytic Study of the Tadoma Method: Discrimination Ability of Untrained Observers

1978 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 625-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte M. Reed ◽  
Steven I. Rubin ◽  
Louis D. Braida ◽  
Nathaniel I. Durlach
Keyword(s):  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Analytic Study ◽  
Tactile Sensitivity ◽  
Auditory Cues ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Right Hand ◽  
Masking Noise ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
Modified Rhyme Test ◽  
Nonsense Syllables

This study reports the ability of two observers with normal-hearing and sight to discriminate pairs of speech elements through the Tadoma method of speechread-ing. The observers were blindfolded and exposed to masking noise to eliminate visual and auditory cues. They placed their right hand over the speaker’s face and neck so that the thumb rested lightly on the lips and the fingers fanned out over the cheek and neck. The discrimination tests were conducted using an ABX procedure. Average discrimination scores for the five types of test materials used in the ABX tests were 87% on W-22 words, 83% on Modified Rhyme Test words, 70% on vowels, 77% on CV and VC nonsense syllables, and 71% on consonant clusters. In all of the ABX tests, the inexperienced observers performed at least as well as the experienced Tadoma user studied by Norton, et al (1977). This finding indicates that the basic tactile sensitivity of inexperienced observers is comparable to that of an experienced deaf-blind Tadoma user.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document