The Finnish speech-in-noise test in MELAS mutation and other sensorineural hearing impairments

2001 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-84
Author(s):  
Seija Uimonen ◽  
Kyösti Laitakari ◽  
Kari Majamaa
Keyword(s):  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impairments ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test

Understanding Excessive SNR Loss in Hearing-Impaired Listeners

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (04) ◽  
pp. 258-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken W. Grant ◽  
Therese C. Walden
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Frequency Selectivity ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Frequency Resolution ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Temporal Acuity ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test

Background: Traditional audiometric measures, such as pure-tone thresholds or unaided word-recognition in quiet, appear to be of marginal use in predicting speech understanding by hearing-impaired (HI) individuals in background noise with or without amplification. Suprathreshold measures of auditory function (tolerance of noise, temporal and frequency resolution) appear to contribute more to success with amplification and may describe more effectively the distortion component of hearing. However, these measures are not typically measured clinically. When combined with measures of audibility, suprathreshold measures of auditory distortion may provide a much more complete understanding of speech deficits in noise by HI individuals. Purpose: The primary goal of this study was to investigate the relationship among measures of speech recognition in noise, frequency selectivity, temporal acuity, modulation masking release, and informational masking in adult and elderly patients with sensorineural hearing loss to determine whether peripheral distortion for suprathreshold sounds contributes to the varied outcomes experienced by patients with sensorineural hearing loss listening to speech in noise. Research Design: A correlational study. Study Sample: Twenty-seven patients with sensorineural hearing loss and four adults with normal hearing were enrolled in the study. Data Collection and Analysis: The data were collected in a sound attenuated test booth. For speech testing, subjects' verbal responses were scored by the experimenter and entered into a custom computer program. For frequency selectivity and temporal acuity measures, subject responses were recorded via a touch screen. Simple correlation, step-wise multiple linear regression analyses and a repeated analysis of variance were performed. Results: Results showed that the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss could only be partially predicted by a listener's thresholds or audibility measures such as the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII). Correlations between SII and SNR loss were higher using the Hearing-in-Noise Test (HINT) than the Quick Speech-in-Noise test (QSIN) with the SII accounting for 71% of the variance in SNR loss for the HINT but only 49% for the QSIN. However, listener age and the addition of suprathreshold measures improved the prediction of SNR loss using the QSIN, accounting for nearly 71% of the variance. Conclusions: Two standard clinical speech-in-noise tests, QSIN and HINT, were used in this study to obtain a measure of SNR loss. When administered clinically, the QSIN appears to be less redundant with hearing thresholds than the HINT and is a better indicator of a patient's suprathreshold deficit and its impact on understanding speech in noise. Additional factors related to aging, spectral resolution, and, to a lesser extent, temporal resolution improved the ability to predict SNR loss measured with the QSIN. For the HINT, a listener's audibility and age were the only two significant factors. For both QSIN and HINT, roughly 25–30% of the variance in individual differences in SNR loss (i.e., the dB difference in SNR between an individual HI listener and a control group of NH listeners at a specified performance level, usually 50% word or sentence recognition) remained unexplained, suggesting the need for additional measures of suprathreshold acuity (e.g., sensitivity to temporal fine structure) or cognitive function (e.g., memory and attention) to further improve the ability to understand individual variability in SNR loss.

scholarly journals Application of Arabic hearing in noise test on subjects with sensorineural hearing loss

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 1635
Author(s):  
Wessam Mostafa Essawy
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Perception Threshold ◽  
Practical Applications ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Test Suit

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> HINT sentence test is one of adaptive speech in noise tests. It has been used in many clinical applications such as recording of speech perception threshold using sentences material in quiet and in noise and verifying the benefit from hearing-aid amplification and cochlear implants, especially in noise. This study was designed to apply HINT to subjects with SNHL to get a normative data for this group.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> This study included 50 subjects with bilateral mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss.  </p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> In SNHL subjects, the mean of sSRT in quiet was 49.46 dB (A)±0.68 dB. The mean of S/N ratio at threshold was 7.69 S/N ratio ±0.68, -8.18±0.33 and -8.18±0.35 in the noise conditions 0°, 90° and 270° respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> The statistical reliability and efficiency of the test suit it to practical applications especially in SNHL subjects. </p>

Can Behavioral Speech-In-Noise Tests Improve the Quality of Hearing Aid Fittings?

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-14
Author(s):  
Robert Moore ◽  
Susan Gordon-Hickey
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Performance Test ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Perceptual Performance ◽  
Noise Test

The purpose of this article is to propose 4 dimensions for consideration in hearing aid fittings and 4 tests to evaluate those dimensions. The 4 dimensions and tests are (a) working memory, evaluated by the Revised Speech Perception in Noise test (Bilger, Nuetzel, & Rabinowitz, 1984); (b) performance in noise, evaluated by the Quick Speech in Noise test (QSIN; Killion, Niquette, Gudmundsen, Revit, & Banerjee, 2004); (c) acceptance of noise, evaluated by the Acceptable Noise Level test (ANL; Nabelek, Tucker, & Letowski, 1991); and (d) performance versus perception, evaluated by the Perceptual–Performance test (PPT; Saunders & Cienkowski, 2002). The authors discuss the 4 dimensions and tests in the context of improving the quality of hearing aid fittings.

scholarly journals Effect of Speech-to-Noise Ratio and Luminance on a Range of Current and Potential Pupil Response Measures to Assess Listening Effort

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 233121652110093
Author(s):  
Patrycja Książek ◽  
Adriana A. Zekveld ◽  
Dorothea Wendt ◽  
Lorenz Fiedler ◽  
Thomas Lunner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Time Course ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Growth Curve Analysis ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Holistic View ◽  
Hearing Research ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Noise Ratio

In hearing research, pupillometry is an established method of studying listening effort. The focus of this study was to evaluate several pupil measures extracted from the Task-Evoked Pupil Responses (TEPRs) in speech-in-noise test. A range of analysis approaches was applied to extract these pupil measures, namely (a) pupil peak dilation (PPD); (b) mean pupil dilation (MPD); (c) index of pupillary activity; (d) growth curve analysis (GCA); and (e) principal component analysis (PCA). The effect of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR; Data Set A: –20 dB, –10 dB, +5 dB SNR) and luminance (Data Set B: 0.1 cd/m2, 360 cd/m2) on the TEPRs were investigated. Data Sets A and B were recorded during a speech-in-noise test and included TEPRs from 33 and 27 normal-hearing native Dutch speakers, respectively. The main results were as follows: (a) A significant effect of SNR was revealed for all pupil measures extracted in the time domain (PPD, MPD, GCA, PCA); (b) Two time series analysis approaches (GCA, PCA) provided modeled temporal profiles of TEPRs (GCA); and time windows spanning subtasks performed in a speech-in-noise test (PCA); and (c) All pupil measures revealed a significant effect of luminance. In conclusion, multiple pupil measures showed similar effects of SNR, suggesting that effort may be reflected in multiple aspects of TEPR. Moreover, a direct analysis of the pupil time course seems to provide a more holistic view of TEPRs, yet further research is needed to understand and interpret its measures. Further research is also required to find pupil measures less sensitive to changes in luminance.

Comparing the Effect of Different Hearing Aid Fitting Methods in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jantien L. Vroegop ◽  
J. Gertjan Dingemanse ◽  
Marc P. van der Schroeff ◽  
André Goedegebure
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Localization Test ◽  
Fitting Procedures ◽  
Auditory Performance ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Noise Test

PurposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the effect of 3 hearing aid fitting procedures on provided gain of the hearing aid in bimodal cochlear implant users and their effect on bimodal benefit.MethodThis prospective study measured hearing aid gain and auditory performance in a cross-over design in which 3 hearing aid fitting methods were compared. Hearing aid fitting methods differed in initial gain prescription rule (NAL-NL2 and Audiogram+) and loudness balancing method (broadband vs. narrowband loudness balancing). Auditory functioning was evaluated by a speech-in-quiet test, a speech-in-noise test, and a sound localization test. Fourteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal cochlear implant users participated in the study.ResultsNo differences in provided gain and in bimodal performance were found for the different hearing aid fittings. For all hearing aid fittings, a bimodal benefit was found for speech in noise and sound localization.ConclusionOur results confirm that cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the contralateral ear substantially benefit from bimodal stimulation. However, on average, no differences were found between different types of fitting methods, varying in prescription rule and loudness balancing method.

scholarly journals Critical appraisal of speech in noise tests: a systematic review and survey

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suhani Sharma ◽  
Rajesh Tripathy ◽  
Udit Saxena
Keyword(s):  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Measurement Model ◽  
Test Time ◽  
Hearing Research ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Instrument Bias ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Selection Of

Speech in noise tests that measure the perception of speech in presence of noise are now an important part of audiologic tests battery and hearing research as well. There are various tests available to estimate the perception of speech in presence of noise, for example, connected sentence test, hearing in noise test, words in noise, quick speech-in-noise test, bamford-kowal-bench speech-in-noise test, and listening in spatialized noise-sentences. All these tests are different in terms of target age, measure, procedure, speech material, noise, normative, etc. Because of the variety of tests available to estimate speech-in-noise abilities, audiologists often select tests based on their availability, ease to administer the test, time required in running the test, age of the patient, hearing status, type of hearing disorder and type of amplification device if using. A critical appraisal of these speech-in-noise tests is required for the evidence based selection and to be used in audiology clinics. In this article speech-in-noise tests were critically appraised for their conceptual model, measurement model, normatives, reliability, validity, responsiveness, item/instrument bias, respondent burden and administrative burden. Selection of a standard speech-in-noise test based on this critical appraisal will also allow an easy comparison of speech-in-noise ability of any hearing impaired individual or group across audiology clinics and research centers. This article also describes the survey which was done to grade the speech in noise tests on the various appraisal characteristics.

scholarly journals Comparing the quick speech-in-noise test results in migraineurs without aura and normal subjects

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabihe Amini ◽  
Fahimeh Hajiabolhassan ◽  
Jamileh Fatahi ◽  
Shohreh Jalaie ◽  
Mohammad Hosein Nilforoush
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Headache Severity ◽  
Normal Individuals ◽  
Duration Of Disease ◽  
Noise Test

Background and Aim: Migraine is a relatively common neurovascular disease. Audiology studies have shown some ways of influencing migraine by the auditory pathways from cochlea to the auditory cortex. Considering that one of the most important functions of the central auditory system is speech perception in challenging conditions, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability to understand speech in noise in migraineurs without aura, and compare it with normal subjects.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 30 migraineurs without aura aged 17 to 41 years (mean=31.9, SD=6.89) and 30 normal individuals who were matched for age and sex with the migraine group were evaluated by quick speech-in-noise test (Q-SIN). The correlation between duration of the disease and the frequency of attacks per month and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss, as well as the role of headache severity on the scores were assessed.Results: In Q-SIN test, the mean SNR loss in migraineurs without aura was greater than that in controls (p<0.05). But this ability did not differ between males and females (p>0.05). There was no correlation between the duration of migraine, frequency of attacks per month and the severity of headache with SNR loss (p>0.05).Conclusion: Migraineurs without aura sometimes have difficulties in speech perception in noise which is not affected by duration of disease, its frequency and the severity of the attacks.

Auditory Brainstem Responses and Clinical Follow-up of High-Risk Infants

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-392
Author(s):  
Steven J. Kramer ◽  
Dianne R. Vertes ◽  
Marie Condon
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Responses ◽  
Hearing Level ◽  
Hearing Impairments ◽  
Brainstem Response ◽  
Infant Program ◽  
High Risk Infants

Auditory brainstem response (ABR) evaluations were performed on 667 high-risk infants from an infant special care unit. Of these infants, 82% passed the ABR. Those infants who failed the ABR were classified into two groups, those who failed at 30 dB hearing level and those who failed at 45 dB hearing level. All of the infants were encouraged to return for otologic/audiologic follow-up in 1, 3, or 6 months, depending on the initial ABR results. All of the infants with severe hearing impairments came from the group who failed at 45 dB hearing level. The incidence of severe sensorineural hearing impairment in this population was estimated to be 2.4%. For the group that failed at 30 dB hearing level, 80% of those who were abnormal at follow-up were considered to have conductive hearing disorders and 20% had mild sensorineural hearing impairments. In addition, infants enrolled in a parent-infant program for hearing impaired by 6 months of age were from the ABR program; however, several infants entered the parent-infant program at a relatively late age because they did not meet the high-risk criteria, they were from other hospitals, or they were not detected by the ABR program.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document