Auditory Processing Testing: In the Booth versus Outside the Booth

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (08) ◽  
pp. 679-684
Author(s):  
Jay R. Lucker
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Laptop Computer ◽  
Test Environment ◽  
Test Conditions ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Processing Measure ◽  
Test Level

AbstractMany audiologists believe that auditory processing testing must be carried out in a soundproof booth. This expectation is especially a problem in places such as elementary schools. Research comparing pure-tone thresholds obtained in sound booths compared to quiet test environments outside of these booths does not support that belief. Auditory processing testing is generally carried out at above threshold levels, and therefore may be even less likely to require a soundproof booth. The present study was carried out to compare test results in soundproof booths versus quiet rooms. The purpose of this study was to determine whether auditory processing tests can be administered in a quiet test room rather than in the soundproof test suite. The outcomes would identify that audiologists can provide auditory processing testing for children under various test conditions including quiet rooms at their school. A battery of auditory processing tests was administered at a test level equivalent to 50 dB HL through headphones. The same equipment was used for testing in both locations.Twenty participants identified with normal hearing were included in this study, ten having no auditory processing concerns and ten exhibiting auditory processing problems. All participants underwent a battery of tests, both inside the test booth and outside the booth in a quiet room. Order of testing (inside versus outside) was counterbalanced.Participants were first determined to have normal hearing thresholds for tones and speech. Auditory processing tests were recorded and presented from an HP EliteBook laptop computer with noise-canceling headphones attached to a y-cord that not only presented the test stimuli to the participants but also allowed monitor headphones to be worn by the evaluator. The same equipment was used inside as well as outside the booth.No differences were found for each auditory processing measure as a function of the test setting or the order in which testing was done, that is, in the booth or in the room.Results from the present study indicate that one can obtain the same results on auditory processing tests, regardless of whether testing is completed in a soundproof booth or in a quiet test environment. Therefore, audiologists should not be required to test for auditory processing in a soundproof booth. This study shows that audiologists can conduct testing in a quiet room so long as the background noise is sufficiently controlled.

Effect of Realistic Test Conditions on Spectral and Temporal Processing in Normal-Hearing Listeners

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-169
Author(s):  
Yang-Soo Yoon ◽  
Callie Michelle Boren ◽  
Brianna Diaz
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Processing ◽  
Detection Threshold ◽  
Frequency Discrimination ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Discrimination Threshold ◽  
Test Environment ◽  
Test Conditions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Test Order ◽  
Pure Tones

Purpose To measure the effect of testing conditions (in the soundproof booth vs. quiet room), test order, and number of test sessions on spectral and temporal processing in normal-hearing (NH) listeners. Method Thirty-two adult NH listeners participated in the three experiments. For all three experiments, the stimuli were presented to the left ear at the subjects' most comfortable level through headphones. All tests were administered in an adaptive three-alternative forced-choice paradigm. Experiment 1 was designed to compare the effect of soundproof booth and quiet room test conditions on amplitude modulation detection threshold and modulation frequency discrimination threshold with each of the five modulation frequencies. Experiment 2 was designed to compare the effect of two test orders on the frequency discrimination thresholds under the quiet room test conditions. The thresholds were first measured in the ascending and descending order of four pure tones, and then with counterbalanced order. For Experiment 3, the amplitude discrimination threshold under the quiet room testing condition was assessed 3 times to determine the effect of the number of test sessions. Then the thresholds were compared over the sessions. Results Results showed no significant effect of test environment. The test order is an important variable for frequency discrimination, particularly between piano tunes and pure tones. Results also show no significant difference across test sessions. Conclusions These results suggest that a controlled test environment may not be required in spectral and temporal assessment for NH listeners. Under the quiet test environment, a single outcome measure is sufficient, but test orders should be counterbalanced.

scholarly journals ‘Normal’ hearing thresholds and fundamental auditory grouping processes predict difficulties with speech-in-noise perception

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Holmes ◽  
Timothy D. Griffiths
Keyword(s):  
Background Noise ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Auditory Grouping ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Clinically Normal ◽  
Stochastic Background ◽  
Tone Pattern ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Everyday Task ◽  
Over Time

AbstractUnderstanding speech when background noise is present is a critical everyday task that varies widely among people. A key challenge is to understand why some people struggle with speech-in-noise perception, despite having clinically normal hearing. Here, we developed new figure-ground tests that require participants to extract a coherent tone pattern from a stochastic background of tones. These tests dissociated variability in speech-in-noise perception related to mechanisms for detecting static (same-frequency) patterns and those for tracking patterns that change frequency over time. In addition, elevated hearing thresholds that are widely considered to be ‘normal’ explained significant variance in speech-in-noise perception, independent of figure-ground perception. Overall, our results demonstrate that successful speech-in-noise perception is related to audiometric thresholds, fundamental grouping of static acoustic patterns, and tracking of acoustic sources that change in frequency. Crucially, speech-in-noise deficits are better assessed by measuring central (grouping) processes alongside audiometric thresholds.

scholarly journals Individual differences in the attentional modulation of the human auditory brainstem response to speech inform on speech-in-noise deficits

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Saiz-Alía ◽  
Antonio Elia Forte ◽  
Tobias Reichenbach
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Brainstem Response ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Responses ◽  
Sensitivity Threshold ◽  
Attentional Modulation ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Brainstem Response

Abstract People with normal hearing thresholds can nonetheless have difficulty with understanding speech in noisy backgrounds. The origins of such supra-threshold hearing deficits remain largely unclear. Previously we showed that the auditory brainstem response to running speech is modulated by selective attention, evidencing a subcortical mechanism that contributes to speech-in-noise comprehension. We observed, however, significant variation in the magnitude of the brainstem’s attentional modulation between the different volunteers. Here we show that this variability relates to the ability of the subjects to understand speech in background noise. In particular, we assessed 43 young human volunteers with normal hearing thresholds for their speech-in-noise comprehension. We also recorded their auditory brainstem responses to running speech when selectively attending to one of two competing voices. To control for potential peripheral hearing deficits, and in particular for cochlear synaptopathy, we further assessed noise exposure, the temporal sensitivity threshold, the middle-ear muscle reflex, and the auditory-brainstem response to clicks in various levels of background noise. These tests did not show evidence for cochlear synaptopathy amongst the volunteers. Furthermore, we found that only the attentional modulation of the brainstem response to speech was significantly related to speech-in-noise comprehension. Our results therefore evidence an impact of top-down modulation of brainstem activity on the variability in speech-in-noise comprehension amongst the subjects.

scholarly journals A Large-Scale Examination of Veterans with Normal Pure-Tone Hearing Thresholds within the Department of Veterans Affairs

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 928-935 ◽  
Author(s):  
Curtis J. Billings ◽  
Lauren K. Dillard ◽  
Zachary B. Hoskins ◽  
Tina M. Penman ◽  
Kelly M. Reavis
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Veterans Affairs ◽  
Data Repository ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Department Of Veterans Affairs ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Hearing Difficulties

AbstractDepartment of Veterans Affairs (VA) audiologists have anecdotally reported examining numerous Veterans with normal pure-tone thresholds; however, the prevalence of these patients within the VA is unknown. The VA audiological data repository provides an ideal dataset to examine this group of Veterans. Knowing the prevalence of normal-hearing Veterans within the VA system is the first step to understanding the underlying referral patterns and clinical complaints of Veterans. Data repositories which capture data from both normal and impaired populations provide an indispensable view into hearing health care which can help to improve diagnosis and treatment of Veterans’ hearing difficulties.Using the VA audiological data repository, this study aimed to (1) determine the prevalence of normal hearing thresholds among Veterans seeking hearing health care within the VA health care system and (2) determine the prevalence of abnormal clinical audiology test results among Veterans with normal hearing thresholds.This study was a large-scale retrospective, descriptive observational analysis of uploaded audiological records from the VA Denver Acquisition and Logistics Center audiological data repository encompassing visits that took place between April 1991 and June 2015.At the time of data extraction, there were 3,641,326 audiological records in the repository, with 2,322,771 unique individual records. The study sample was further restricted to include only individuals with normal hearing (n = 235,091), which was defined as pure-tone thresholds better than, or equal to, 25 dB HL at octave frequencies from 250 to 8000 Hz, bilaterally. Patients ranged from 19 to 90+ years of age.We describe the data using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and means and standard deviations for continuous variables. In addition to hearing thresholds, the occurrence of abnormal results on other tests in the audiological test battery is also reported. We estimate the prevalence of normal hearing among all Veterans with records in the VA audiological data repository.Veterans with normal hearing were on average 37 yr old. The prevalence of Veterans with normal hearing thresholds visiting VA audiology clinics in the current hearing repository dataset was 10.12%. Overall, 41% of Veterans with normal pure-tone thresholds had other clinically abnormal audiological test results; for example, contralateral acoustic reflex thresholds (31.7%) and tympanometry (21.5%) had the highest rate of abnormal test results.Approximately one in ten Veterans seeking care within the VA healthcare system, and reported to the VA audiological data repository, has normal pure-tone hearing thresholds. This may be an underestimate of the true underlying prevalence of normal-hearing Veterans seeking audiology services at the VA because records with normal results were not consistently submitted to the repository. In addition, 41% of Veterans with normal pure-tone thresholds nonetheless presented with other audiological abnormalities. This study suggests that future work directed toward understanding referral patterns and clinical complaints of individuals who present to VA audiology clinics with normal hearing thresholds may be fruitful in the cause of improving diagnosis and treatment of Veterans’ hearing difficulties.

scholarly journals ‘Normal’ hearing thresholds and fundamental auditory grouping processes predict difficulties with speech-in-noise perception

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Holmes ◽  
Timothy D. Griffiths
Keyword(s):  
Background Noise ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Auditory Grouping ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Clinically Normal ◽  
Stochastic Background ◽  
Tone Pattern ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Everyday Task ◽  
Over Time

AbstractUnderstanding speech when background noise is present is a critical everyday task that varies widely among people. A key challenge is to understand why some people struggle with speech-in-noise perception, despite having clinically normal hearing. Here, we developed new figure-ground tests that require participants to extract a coherent tone pattern from a stochastic background of tones. These tests dissociated variability in speech-in-noise perception related to mechanisms for detecting static (same-frequency) patterns and those for tracking patterns that change frequency over time. In addition, elevated hearing thresholds that are widely considered to be ‘normal’ explained significant variance in speech-in-noise perception, independent of figure-ground perception. Overall, our results demonstrate that successful speech-in-noise perception is related to audiometric thresholds, fundamental grouping of static acoustic patterns, and tracking of acoustic sources that change in frequency. Crucially, measuring both peripheral (audiometric thresholds) and central (grouping) processes is required to adequately assess speech-in-noise deficits.

The Effect of Presentation Level on Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners' Acceptable Speech and Noise Levels

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 017-025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karrie L. Recker ◽  
Brent W. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Presentation Level ◽  
Different Levels

Background: Acceptable noise level (ANL) is a measure of the maximum amount of background noise that a listener is willing to “put up with” while listening to running speech. This test is unique in that it can predict with a high degree of accuracy who will be a successful hearing-aid wearer. Individuals who tolerate high levels of background noise are generally successful hearing-aid wearers, whereas individuals who do not tolerate background noise well are generally unsuccessful hearing-aid wearers. Purpose: Various studies have been unsuccessful in trying to relate ANLs to listener characteristics or other test results. Presumably, understanding the perceptual mechanism by which listeners determine their ANLs could provide an understanding of the ANL's unique predictive abilities and our current inability to correlate these results with other listener attributes or test results. As a first step in investigating this problem, the relationships between ANLs and other threshold measures where listeners adjust the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) according to some criterion in a way similar to the ANL measure were examined. Research Design and Study Sample: Ten normal-hearing and 10 hearing-impaired individuals participated in a laboratory experiment that followed a within-subjects, repeated-measures design. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants were seated in a sound booth. Running speech and noise (eight-talker babble) were presented from a loudspeaker at 0°, 3 ft in front of the participant. Individuals adjusted either the level of the speech or the level of the background noise. Specifically, with the speech fixed at different levels (50, 63, 75, or 88 dBA), participants performed the ANL task, in which they adjusted the level of the background noise to the maximum level at which they were willing to listen while following the speech. With the noise fixed at different levels (50, 60, 70, or 80 dBA), participants adjusted the level of the speech to the minimum, preferred, or maximum levels at which they were willing to listen while following the speech. Additionally, for the minimum acceptable speech level task, each participant was tested at four participant-specific noise levels, based on his/her ANL results. To emphasize that the speech level was adjusted in these measurements, three new terms were coined: “minimum acceptable speech level” (MinASL), “preferred speech level” (PSL), and “maximum acceptable speech level” (MaxASL). Each condition was presented twice, and the results were averaged. Test order and presentation level were randomized. Hearing-impaired participants were tested in the aided condition only. Results: For most participants, as the presentation level increased, SNRs increased for the ANL test but decreased for the MinASL, PSL, and MaxASL tests. For a few participants, ANLs were similar to MinASLs. For most test conditions, the normal-hearing results were not significantly different from those of the hearing-impaired participants. Conclusions: For most participants, stimulus level affected the SNRs at which they were willing to listen. However, a subset of listeners was willing to listen at a constant SNR for the ANL and MinASL tests. Furthermore, for these individuals, ANLs and MinASLs were roughly equal, suggesting that these individuals may have used the same perceptual criterion for both tests.

scholarly journals Acceptable noise levels in Arabic-Persian bilinguals

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fateme Taheri ◽  
Ahmad Geshani ◽  
Jamileh Fatahi ◽  
Shohreh Jalaie ◽  
Mojtaba Tavakoli
Keyword(s):  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Persian Version ◽  
Background Noise Level ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
The Difference ◽  
E Mail

Background and Aim: Acceptable noise level (ANL) test is a reliable measure of people’s abi­lity to tolerate background noise. Central ner­vous system is one of the determinant factors in subject’s tolerance of noise. Bilinguals’ diffe­rent central activity pattern may yield different ANL test results from monolinguals. This study aims to compare noise tolerance function in Arabic-Persian bilinguals with Persian monolin­guals via Persian version of ANL. Methods: In the present study, the Persian ver­sion of ANL was administered on 115 cases with normal hearing (56 male, 59 female) aged 18–37 years in three groups of the Persian mon­olingual, sequential Arabic-Persian bilinguals, and simultaneous Arabic-Persian bilinguals. Results: The statistical analysis revealed sig­nificant difference in most comfortable level (p = 0.002) and background noise level (p = 0.011) among three groups, i.e. between Persian monolinguals and sequential Arabic-Persian bil­inguals and between Persian monolinguals and simultaneous Arabic-Persian bilinguals. In other words, mean scores of bilingual were higher than monolingual scores. There was no signifi­cant difference among three groups with regard to ANL scores (p = 0.114). * Corresponding author: Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Piche-Shemiran, Enghelab Ave., Tehran, 1148965141, Iran. Tel: 009821-77530636, E-mail: [email protected] Conclusion: Despite the difference between Persian monolinguals and Arabic-Persian bilin­guals in most comfortable level and background noise level, there is no significance difference in ANL results. Therefore, auditory central proce­ssing acts similarly in normal hearing monolin­gual and bilingual subjects. As a result, Persian version of ANL can be used for Arabic-Persian bilinguals, too.

Use of a Mild-Gain Hearing Aid by Middle-Age Normal-Hearing Adults Who Do and Do Not Self-Report Trouble Hearing in Background Noise

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-428
Author(s):  
Jasleen Singh ◽  
Karen A. Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Middle Age ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Hearing Problems

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess how the use of a mild-gain hearing aid can affect hearing handicap, motivation, and attitudes toward hearing aids for middle-age, normal-hearing adults who do and do not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Method A total of 20 participants (45–60 years of age) with clinically normal-hearing thresholds (< 25 dB HL) were enrolled in this study. Ten self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise, and 10 did not self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. All participants were fit with mild-gain hearing aids, bilaterally, and were asked to wear them for 2 weeks. Hearing handicap, attitudes toward hearing aids and hearing loss, and motivation to address hearing problems were evaluated before and after participants wore the hearing aids. Participants were also asked if they would consider purchasing a hearing aid before and after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Results After wearing the hearing aids for 2 weeks, hearing handicap scores decreased for the participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise. No changes in hearing handicap scores were observed for the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. The participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise also reported greater personal distress from their hearing problems, were more motivated to address their hearing problems, and had higher levels of hearing handicap compared to the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Only 20% (2/10) of the participants who self-reported trouble hearing in background noise reported that they would consider purchasing a hearing aid after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Conclusions The use of mild-gain hearing aids has the potential to reduce hearing handicap for normal-hearing, middle-age adults who self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. However, this may not be the most appropriate treatment option for their current hearing problems given that only 20% of these participants would consider purchasing a hearing aid after wearing hearing aids for 2 weeks.

Manipulate Me

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 554-562
Author(s):  
Alica Thissen ◽  
Frank M. Spinath ◽  
Nicolas Becker
Keyword(s):  
High School Students ◽  
Spatial Ability ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Item Difficulty ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Response Elimination ◽  
School Students ◽  
Test Environment ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Construction Task

Abstract. The cube construction task represents a novel format in the assessment of spatial ability through mental cube rotation tasks. Instead of selecting the correct answer from several response options, respondents construct their own response in a computerized test environment, leading to a higher demand for spatial ability. In the present study with a sample of 146 German high-school students, we tested an approach to manipulate the item difficulties in order to create items with a greater difficulty range. Furthermore, we compared the cube task in a distractor-free and a distractor-based version while the item stems were held identical. The average item difficulty of the distractor-free format was significantly higher than in the distractor-based format ( M = 0.27 vs. M = 0.46) and the distractor-free format showed a broader range of item difficulties (.02 ≤  pi ≤ .95 vs. .37 ≤  pi ≤ .63). The analyses of the test results also showed that the distractor-free format had a significantly higher correlation with a broad intelligence test ( r = .57 vs. r = .17). Reasons for the higher convergent validity of the distractor-free format (prevention of response elimination strategies and the broader range of item difficulties) and further research possibilities are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document