scholarly journals The Effect of Stimulus Audibility on the Relationship between Pure-Tone Average and Speech Recognition in Noise Ability

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vermiglio ◽  
Sigfrid D. Soli ◽  
Daniel J. Freed ◽  
Xiangming Fang
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Pure Tone Average ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
The Relationship

scholarly journals The Effect of Stimulus Audibility on the Relationship between Pure-Tone Average and Speech Recognition in Noise Ability

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (03) ◽  
pp. 224-232
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vermiglio ◽  
Sigfrid D. Soli ◽  
Daniel J. Freed ◽  
Xiangming Fang
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Pure Tone Average ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Pure Tone Threshold

AbstractThe literature presents conflicting reports on the relationship between pure-tone threshold average and speech recognition in noise ability.The purpose of this retrospective study and meta-analysis was to determine the effect of stimulus audibility on the relationship between speech recognition in noise ability and bilateral pure-tone average (BPTA).Pure-tone threshold and Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) data from two data sets were evaluated. The HINT data from both data sets were divided into groups with complete and partial audibility of the HINT stimuli delivered at 65 dBA.Normal and hearing-impaired participants were included in this retrospective study. For data set 1 (n = 215), a relatively weak relationship had been found between HINT thresholds and BPTA. For data set 2 (n = 55), a relatively strong relationship had been found between HINT thresholds and BPTA. For data set 1, only 10% of the participants had partial audibility of the HINT stimuli. For data set 2, 16% of the participants had partial audibility of the HINT stimuli.Pure-tone thresholds and HINT data were obtained from published and unpublished studies. HINT data were collected in a simulated soundfield environment under headphones using the standard HINT protocol. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, correlations, and a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multiple regression.A two-way ANOVA followed by post hoc analyses revealed a greater difference between the data sets for the Noise Front thresholds obtained with partial rather than complete audibility of the stimuli. A weak and nonsignificant relationship was found between BPTA(0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 6.0 kHz) versus HINT Noise Front thresholds for complete audibility data (r = 0.060, p = 0.356) and a strong relationship was found for the partial audibility data (r = 0.863, p < 0.001).The proportion of partial audibility data in a given data set may influence the relative strength of the relationship between BPTA and HINT Noise Front thresholds. This brings into question the convention of using pure-tone average as a predictor of speech recognition in noise ability.

The Relationship between High-Frequency Pure-Tone Hearing Loss, Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) Thresholds, and the Articulation Index

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 779-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vermiglio ◽  
Sigfrid D. Soli ◽  
Daniel J. Freed ◽  
Laurel M. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Articulation Index ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Pure Tone Threshold

Background: Speech recognition in noise testing has been conducted at least since the 1940s (Dickson et al, 1946). The ability to recognize speech in noise is a distinct function of the auditory system (Plomp, 1978). According to Kochkin (2002), difficulty recognizing speech in noise is the primary complaint of hearing aid users. However, speech recognition in noise testing has not found widespread use in the field of audiology (Mueller, 2003; Strom, 2003; Tannenbaum and Rosenfeld, 1996). The audiogram has been used as the “gold standard” for hearing ability. However, the audiogram is a poor indicator of speech recognition in noise ability. Purpose: This study investigates the relationship between pure-tone thresholds, the articulation index, and the ability to recognize speech in quiet and in noise. Research Design: Pure-tone thresholds were measured for audiometric frequencies 250–6000 Hz. Pure-tone threshold groups were created. These included a normal threshold group and slight, mild, severe, and profound high-frequency pure-tone threshold groups. Speech recognition thresholds in quiet and in noise were obtained using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) (Nilsson et al, 1994; Vermiglio, 2008). The articulation index was determined by using Pavlovic's method with pure-tone thresholds (Pavlovic, 1989, 1991). Study Sample: Two hundred seventy-eight participants were tested. All participants were native speakers of American English. Sixty-three of the original participants were removed in order to create groups of participants with normal low-frequency pure-tone thresholds and relatively symmetrical high-frequency pure-tone threshold groups. The final set of 215 participants had a mean age of 33 yr with a range of 17–59 yr. Data Collection and Analysis: Pure-tone threshold data were collected using the Hughson-Weslake procedure. Speech recognition data were collected using a Windows-based HINT software system. Statistical analyses were conducted using descriptive, correlational, and multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) statistics. Results: The MANCOVA analysis (where the effect of age was statistically removed) indicated that there were no significant differences in HINT performances between groups of participants with normal audiograms and those groups with slight, mild, moderate, or severe high-frequency hearing losses. With all of the data combined across groups, correlational analyses revealed significant correlations between pure-tone averages and speech recognition in quiet performance. Nonsignificant or significant but weak correlations were found between pure-tone averages and HINT thresholds. Conclusions: The ability to recognize speech in steady-state noise cannot be predicted from the audiogram. A new classification scheme of hearing impairment based on the audiogram and the speech reception in noise thresholds, as measured with the HINT, may be useful for the characterization of the hearing ability in the global sense. This classification scheme is consistent with Plomp's two aspects of hearing ability (Plomp, 1978).

A Comparison of Two Word-Recognition Tasks in Multitalker Babble: Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) and Words-in-Noise Test (WIN)

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (07) ◽  
pp. 548-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Wendy B. Cates
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Pure Tone Average ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: The Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) is a word-recognition instrument that presents the 200 Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) words binaurally at 50 dB HL in a multitalker babble at a 9 dB signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) (Cord et al, 1992). The SPRINT was developed by and used by the Army as a more valid predictor of communication abilities (than pure-tone thresholds or word-recognition in quiet) for issues involving fitness for duty from a hearing perspective of Army personnel. The Words-in-Noise test (WIN) is a slightly different word-recognition task in a fixed level multitalker babble with 10 NU-6 words presented at each of 7 S/N from 24 to 0 dB S/N in 4 dB decrements (Wilson, 2003; Wilson and McArdle, 2007). For the two instruments, both the babble and the speakers of the words are different. The SPRINT uses all 200 NU-6 words, whereas the WIN uses a maximum of 70 words. Purpose: The purpose was to compare recognition performances by 24 young listeners with normal hearing and 48 older listeners with sensorineural hearing on the SPRINT and WIN protocols. Research Design: A quasi-experimental, mixed model design was used. Study Sample: The 24 young listeners with normal hearing (19 to 29 years, mean = 23.3 years) were from the local university and had normal hearing (≤20 dB HL; American National Standards Institute, 2004) at the 250–8000 Hz octave intervals. The 48 older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss (60 to 82 years, mean = 69.9 years) had the following inclusion criteria: (1) a threshold at 500 Hz between 15 and 30 dB HL, (2) a threshold at 1000 Hz between 20 and 40 dB HL, (3) a three-frequency pure-tone average (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz) of ≤40 dB HL, (4) word-recognition scores in quiet ≥40%, and (5) no history of middle ear or retrocochlear pathology as determined by an audiologic evaluation. Data Collection and Analysis: The speech materials were presented bilaterally in the following order: (1) the SPRINT at 50 dB HL, (2) two half lists of NU-6 words in quiet at 60 dB HL and 80 dB HL, and (3) the two 35-word lists of the WIN materials with the multitalker babble fixed at 60 dB HL. Data collection occurred during a 40–60 minute session. Recognition performances on each stimulus word were analyzed. Results: The listeners with normal hearing obtained 92.5% correct on the SPRINT with a 50% point on the WIN of 2.7 dB S/N. The listeners with hearing loss obtained 65.3% correct on the SPRINT and a WIN 50% point at 12.0 dB S/N. The SPRINT and WIN were significantly correlated (r = −0.81, p < .01), indicating that the SPRINT had good concurrent validity. The high-frequency, pure-tone average (1000, 2000, 4000 Hz) had higher correlations with the SPRINT, WIN, and NU-6 in quiet than did the traditional three-frequency pure-tone average (500, 1000, 2000 Hz). Conclusions: Graphically and numerically the SPRINT and WIN were highly related, which is indicative of good concurrent validity of the SPRINT.

Interactions between Cognition, Compression, and Listening Conditions: Effects on Speech-in-Noise Performance in a Two-Channel Hearing Aid

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (07) ◽  
pp. 604-617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Lunner ◽  
Elisabet Sundewall-Thorén
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Test Procedure ◽  
Performance Measure ◽  
Cognitive Test ◽  
Fast Time ◽  
Time Constants ◽  
Pure Tone Average

This study which included 23 experienced hearing aid users replicated several of the experiments reported in Gatehouse et al (2003, 2006) with new speech test material, language, and test procedure. The performance measure used was SNR required for 80% correct words in a sentence test. Consistent with Gatehouse et al, this study indicated that subjects showing a low score in a cognitive test (visual letter monitoring) performed better in the speech recognition test with slow time constants than with fast time constants, and performed better in unmodulated noise than in modulated noise, while subjects with high scores on the cognitive test showed the opposite pattern. Furthermore, cognitive test scores were significantly correlated with the differential advantage of fast-acting versus slow-acting compression in conditions of modulated noise.The pure tone average threshold explained 30% of the variance in aided speech recognition in noise under relatively simple listening conditions, while cognitive test scores explained about 40% of the variance under more complex, fluctuating listening conditions, where the pure tone average explained less than 5% of the variance. This suggests that speech recognition under steady-state noise conditions may underestimate the role of cognition in real-life listening.

Clinical Experience with the Words-in-Noise Test on 3430 Veterans: Comparisons with Pure-Tone Thresholds and Word Recognition in Quiet

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (07) ◽  
pp. 405-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Laboratory Studies ◽  
Auditory Function ◽  
Pure Tone Average ◽  
Correct Point ◽  
Audiologic Evaluation

Background: Since the 1940s, measures of pure-tone sensitivity and speech recognition in quiet have been vital components of the audiologic evaluation. Although early investigators urged that speech recognition in noise also should be a component of the audiologic evaluation, only recently has this suggestion started to become a reality. This report focuses on the Words-in-Noise (WIN) Test, which evaluates word recognition in multitalker babble at seven signal-to-noise ratios and uses the 50% correct point (in dB SNR) calculated with the Spearman-Kärber equation as the primary metric. The WIN was developed and validated in a series of 12 laboratory studies. The current study examined the effectiveness of the WIN materials for measuring the word-recognition performance of patients in a typical clinical setting. Purpose: To examine the relations among three audiometric measures including pure-tone thresholds, word-recognition performances in quiet, and word-recognition performances in multitalker babble for veterans seeking remediation for their hearing loss. Research Design: Retrospective, descriptive. Study Sample: The participants were 3430 veterans who for the most part were evaluated consecutively in the Audiology Clinic at the VA Medical Center, Mountain Home, Tennessee. The mean age was 62.3 yr (SD = 12.8 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: The data were collected in the course of a 60 min routine audiologic evaluation. A history, otoscopy, and aural-acoustic immittance measures also were included in the clinic protocol but were not evaluated in this report. Results: Overall, the 1000–8000 Hz thresholds were significantly lower (better) in the right ear (RE) than in the left ear (LE). There was a direct relation between age and the pure-tone thresholds, with greater change across age in the high frequencies than in the low frequencies. Notched audiograms at 4000 Hz were observed in at least one ear in 41% of the participants with more unilateral than bilateral notches. Normal pure-tone thresholds (≤20 dB HL) were obtained from 6% of the participants. Maximum performance on the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) in quiet was ≥90% correct by 50% of the participants, with an additional 20% performing at ≥80% correct; the RE performed 1–3% better than the LE. Of the 3291 who completed the WIN on both ears, only 7% exhibited normal performance (50% correct point of ≤6 dB SNR). Overall, WIN performance was significantly better in the RE (mean = 13.3 dB SNR) than in the LE (mean = 13.8 dB SNR). Recognition performance on both the NU-6 and the WIN decreased as a function of both pure-tone hearing loss and age. There was a stronger relation between the high-frequency pure-tone average (1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz) and the WIN than between the pure-tone average (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz) and the WIN. Conclusions: The results on the WIN from both the previous laboratory studies and the current clinical study indicate that the WIN is an appropriate clinic instrument to assess word-recognition performance in background noise. Recognition performance on a speech-in-quiet task does not predict performance on a speech-in-noise task, as the two tasks reflect different domains of auditory function. Experience with the WIN indicates that word-in-noise tasks should be considered the “stress test” for auditory function.

scholarly journals The Relationship between Random Gap Detection and Hearing in Noise Test Performances

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 948-954 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paige Heeke ◽  
Andrew J. Vermiglio ◽  
Emery Bulla ◽  
Keerthana Velappan ◽  
Xiangming Fang
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Temporal Resolution ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Gap Detection ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Noise Performance ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractTemporal acoustic cues are particularly important for speech understanding, and past research has inferred a relationship between temporal resolution and speech recognition in noise ability. A temporal resolution disorder is thought to affect speech understanding abilities because persons would not be able to accurately encode these frequency transitions, creating speech discrimination errors even in the presence of normal pure-tone hearing.The primary purpose was to investigate the relationship between temporal resolution as measured by the Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT) and speech recognition in noise performance as measured by the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) in adults with normal audiometric thresholds. The second purpose was to examine the relationship between temporal resolution and spatial release from masking.The HINT and RGDT protocols were administered under headphones according to the guidelines specified by the developers. The HINT uses an adaptive protocol to determine the signal-to-noise ratio where the participant recognizes 50% of the sentences. For HINT conditions, the target sentences were presented at 0° and the steady-state speech-shaped noise and a four-talker babble (4TB) was presented at 0°, +90°, or −90° for noise front, noise right, and noise left conditions, respectively. The RGDT is used to evaluate temporal resolution by determining the smallest time interval between two matching stimuli that can be detected by the participant. The RGDT threshold is the shortest time interval where the participant detects a gap. Tonal (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) and click stimuli random gap subtests were presented at 60 dB HL. Tonal subtests were presented in a random order to minimize presentation order effects.Twenty-one young, native English-speaking participants with normal pure-tone thresholds (≤25 dB HL for 500–4000 Hz) participated in this study. The average age of the participants was 20.2 years (SD = 0.66).Spearman rho correlation coefficients were conducted using SPSS 22 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) to determine the relationships between HINT and RGDT thresholds and derived measures (spatial advantage and composite scores). Nonparametric testing was used because of the ordinal nature of RGDT data.Moderate negative correlations (p < 0.05) were found between eight RGDT and HINT threshold measures and a moderate positive correlation (p < 0.05) was found between RGDT click thresholds and HINT 4TB spatial advantage. This suggests that as temporal resolution abilities worsened, speech recognition in noise performance improved. These correlations were not statistically significant after the p value reflected the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.The results of the present study imply that the RGDT and HINT use different temporal processes. Performance on the RGDT cannot be predicted from HINT thresholds or vice versa.

Spanish Pediatric Speech Recognition Threshold Test

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 597-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Lucks Mendel ◽  
Monique Pousson ◽  
Johnnie K. Bass ◽  
Rachel E. Lunsford ◽  
Caleb McNiece
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Test Construction ◽  
Recognition Threshold ◽  
Stimulus Selection ◽  
Threshold Test ◽  
Spanish Speaking ◽  
Pure Tone Average ◽  
Study Test

Purpose The purpose of this study was to construct a recorded speech recognition threshold (SRT) test for Spanish-speaking children utilizing a picture board and a picture-pointing task. Design The Spanish Pediatric Speech Recognition Threshold (SPSRT) test was developed and validated in this study. Test construction steps included (a) stimulus selection, (b) assessment of familiarity, (c) digital recording, (d) creation of pictures that accurately depicted the target word from the stimulus set, and (e) validation of the test and recordings. SRTs were obtained from 24 Spanish-speaking children whose 1st language was Spanish. Results Normative data are presented that validate the SPSRT and establish the baseline relationship between the pure-tone average and the SRT obtained with the SPSRT. Results indicated that the SPSRT obtained using this test should be within 2–12 dB of an individual's pure-tone average for Spanish-speaking children with normal hearing and minimal hearing loss. Conclusions The SPSRT was developed and validated as a picture-pointing Spanish SRT test to be used with Spanish-speaking children. The 2-channel recording contains an English translation track, making this test easy to administer and interpret for clinicians without knowledge of Spanish.

Speech Recognition Outcomes in Adults With Slim Straight and Slim Modiolar Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110363
Author(s):  
Margaret E. MacPhail ◽  
Nathan T. Connell ◽  
Douglas J. Totten ◽  
Mitchell T. Gray ◽  
David Pisoni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Lateral Wall ◽  
Electrode Arrays ◽  
Academic Hospital ◽  
Pure Tone Average ◽  
Data Log ◽  
Percentage Correct

Objective To compare differences in audiologic outcomes between slim modiolar electrode (SME) CI532 and slim lateral wall electrode (SLW) CI522 cochlear implant recipients. Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Tertiary academic hospital. Methods Comparison of postoperative AzBio sentence scores in quiet (percentage correct) in adult cochlear implant recipients with SME or SLW matched for preoperative AzBio sentence scores in quiet and aided and unaided pure tone average. Results Patients with SLW (n = 52) and patients with SME (n = 37) had a similar mean (SD) age (62.0 [18.2] vs 62.6 [14.6] years, respectively), mean preoperative aided pure tone average (55.9 [20.4] vs 58.1 [16.4] dB; P = .59), and mean AzBio score (percentage correct, 11.1% [13.3%] vs 8.0% [11.5%]; P = .25). At last follow-up (SLW vs SME, 9.0 [2.9] vs 9.9 [2.6] months), postoperative mean AzBio scores in quiet were not significantly different (percentage correct, 70.8% [21.3%] vs 65.6% [24.5%]; P = .29), and data log usage was similar (12.9 [4.0] vs 11.3 [4.1] hours; P = .07). In patients with preoperative AzBio <10% correct, the 6-month mean AzBio scores were significantly better with SLW than SME (percentage correct, 70.6% [22.9%] vs 53.9% [30.3%]; P = .02). The intraoperative tip rollover rate was 8% for SME and 0% for SLW. Conclusions Cochlear implantation with SLW and SME provides comparable improvement in audiologic functioning. SME does not exhibit superior speech recognition outcomes when compared with SLW.

scholarly journals Evaluating a smartphone digits-in-noise test as part of the audiometric test battery

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenni-Mari Potgieter ◽  
De Wet Swanepoel ◽  
Cas Smits
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Test Battery ◽  
Battery Design ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
Audiometric Test ◽  
Female Subjects

Background: Speech-in-noise tests have become a valuable part of the audiometric test battery providing an indication of a listener’s ability to function in background noise. A simple digits-in-noise (DIN) test could be valuable to support diagnostic hearing assessments, hearing aid fittings and counselling for both paediatric and adult populations. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the South African English smartphone DIN test’s performance as part of the audiometric test battery. Design: This descriptive study evaluated 109 adult subjects (43 male and 66 female subjects) with and without sensorineural hearing loss by comparing pure-tone air conduction thresholds, speech recognition monaural performance scores (SRS dB) and the DIN speech reception threshold (SRT). An additional nine adult hearing aid users (four male and five female subjects) were included in a subset to determine aided and unaided DIN SRTs. Results: The DIN SRT is strongly associated with the best ear 4 frequency pure-tone average (4FPTA) (rs = 0.81) and maximum SRS dB (r = 0.72). The DIN test had high sensitivity and specificity to identify abnormal pure-tone (0.88 and 0.88, respectively) and SRS dB (0.76 and 0.88, respectively) results. There was a mean signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) improvement in the aided condition that demonstrated an overall benefit of 0.84 SNR dB. Conclusion: The DIN SRT was significantly correlated with the best ear 4FPTA and maximum SRS dB. The DIN SRT provides a useful measure of speech recognition in noise that can evaluate hearing aid fittings, manage counselling and hearing expectations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document