scholarly journals An Automated Speech-in-Noise Test for Remote Testing: Development and Preliminary Evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3S) ◽  
pp. 564-576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessia Paglialonga ◽  
Edoardo Maria Polo ◽  
Marco Zanet ◽  
Giulia Rocco ◽  
Toon van Waterschoot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Test Time ◽  
Preliminary Evaluation ◽  
Test Duration ◽  
Adaptive Procedure ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test

Purpose The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a novel, automated speech-in-noise test viable for widespread in situ and remote screening. Method Vowel–consonant–vowel sounds in a multiple-choice consonant discrimination task were used. Recordings from a professional male native English speaker were used. A novel adaptive staircase procedure was developed, based on the estimated intelligibility of stimuli rather than on theoretical binomial models. Test performance was assessed in a population of 26 young adults (YAs) with normal hearing and in 72 unscreened adults (UAs), including native and nonnative English listeners. Results The proposed test provided accurate estimates of the speech recognition threshold (SRT) compared to a conventional adaptive procedure. Consistent outcomes were observed in YAs in test/retest and in controlled/uncontrolled conditions and in UAs in native and nonnative listeners. The SRT increased with increasing age, hearing loss, and self-reported hearing handicap in UAs. Test duration was similar in YAs and UAs irrespective of age and hearing loss. The test–retest repeatability of SRTs was high (Pearson correlation coefficient = .84), and the pass/fail outcomes of the test were reliable in repeated measures (Cohen's κ = .8). The test was accurate in identifying ears with pure-tone thresholds > 25 dB HL (accuracy = 0.82). Conclusion This study demonstrated the viability of the proposed test in subjects of varying language in terms of accuracy, reliability, and short test time. Further research is needed to validate the test in a larger population across a wider range of languages and hearing loss and to identify optimal classification criteria for screening purposes.

scholarly journals Improving Sensitivity of the Digits-in-Noise Test using Antiphasic Stimuli

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karina C. De Sousa ◽  
De Wet Swanepoel ◽  
David R. Moore ◽  
Hermanus Carel Myburgh ◽  
Cas Smits
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Regression Line ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Test Duration ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Operating Characteristics ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Noise Test

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe digits-in-noise test (DIN) has become increasingly popular as a consumer-based method to screen for hearing loss. Current versions of all DINs either test ears monaurally or present identical stimuli binaurally (i.e., diotic noise and speech, NoSo). Unfortunately, presentation of identical stimuli to each ear inhibits detection of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), and neither diotic nor monaural presentation sensitively detects conductive hearing loss (CHL). Following an earlier finding of enhanced sensitivity in normally hearing listeners, this study tested the hypothesis that interaural antiphasic digit presentation (NoSπ) would improve sensitivity to hearing loss caused by unilateral or asymmetric SNHL, symmetric SNHL, or CHL.DesignThis cross-sectional study, recruited adults (18-84 years) with various levels of hearing, based on a four-frequency pure tone average (PTA) at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4kHz. The study sample was comprised of listeners with normal hearing (n=41; PTA ≤ 25 dB HL in both ears), symmetric SNHL (n=57; PTA > 25 dB HL), unilateral or asymmetric SNHL (n=24; PTA > 25 dB HL in the poorer ear) and CHL (n=23; PTA > 25 dB HL and PTA air-bone gap ≥ 20 dB HL in the poorer ear). Antiphasic and diotic speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were compared using a repeated-measures design.ResultsAntiphasic DIN was significantly more sensitive to all three forms of hearing loss than the diotic DIN. SRT test-retest reliability was high for all tests (ICC r > 0.89). Area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for detection of hearing loss (> 25 dB HL) was higher for antiphasic DIN (0.94) than for diotic DIN (0.77) presentation. After correcting for age, PTA of listeners with normal hearing or symmetric SNHL was more strongly correlated with antiphasic (rpartial[96]=0.69) than diotic (rpartial=0.54) SRTs. Slope of fitted regression lines predicting SRT from PTA was significantly steeper for antiphasic than diotic DIN. For listeners with normal hearing or CHL, antiphasic SRTs were more strongly correlated with PTA (rpartial[62]=0.92) than diotic SRTs (rpartial[62]=0.64). Slope of regression line with PTA was also significantly steeper for antiphasic than diotic DIN. Severity of asymmetric hearing loss (poorer ear PTA) was unrelated to SRT. No effect of self-reported English competence on either antiphasic or diotic DIN among the mixed first-language participants was observedConclusionsAntiphasic digit presentation markedly improved the sensitivity of the DIN test to detect SNHL, either symmetric or asymmetric, while keeping test duration to a minimum by testing binaurally. In addition, the antiphasic DIN was able to detect CHL, a shortcoming of previous monaural or binaurally diotic DIN versions. The antiphasic DIN is thus a powerful tool for population-based screening. This enhanced functionality combined with smartphone delivery could make the antiphasic DIN suitable as a primary screen that is accessible to a large global audience.

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.

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 Automated Smartphone Threshold Audiometry: Validity and Time Efficiency

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (03) ◽  
pp. 200-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica van Tonder ◽  
De Wet Swanepoel ◽  
Faheema Mahomed-Asmail ◽  
Hermanus Myburgh ◽  
Robert H. Eikelboom
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Test Time ◽  
Test Duration ◽  
Test Procedures ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Effective Option ◽  
Adolescent Sample ◽  
Air Conduction

AbstractSmartphone-based threshold audiometry with automated testing has the potential to provide affordable access to audiometry in underserved contexts.To validate the threshold version (hearTest) of the validated hearScreen™ smartphone-based application using inexpensive smartphones (Android operating system) and calibrated supra-aural headphones.A repeated measures within-participant study design was employed to compare air-conduction thresholds (0.5–8 kHz) obtained through automated smartphone audiometry to thresholds obtained through conventional audiometry.A total of 95 participants were included in the study. Of these, 30 were adults, who had known bilateral hearing losses of varying degrees (mean age = 59 yr, standard deviation [SD] = 21.8; 56.7% female), and 65 were adolescents (mean age = 16.5 yr, SD = 1.2; 70.8% female), of which 61 had normal hearing and the remaining 4 had mild hearing losses.Threshold comparisons were made between the two test procedures. The Wilcoxon signed-ranked test was used for comparison of threshold correspondence between manual and smartphone thresholds and the paired samples t test was used to compare test time.Within the adult sample, 94.4% of thresholds obtained through smartphone and conventional audiometry corresponded within 10 dB or less. There was no significant difference between smartphone (6.75-min average, SD = 1.5) and conventional audiometry test duration (6.65-min average, SD = 2.5). Within the adolescent sample, 84.7% of thresholds obtained at 0.5, 2, and 4 kHz with hearTest and conventional audiometry corresponded within ≤5 dB. At 1 kHz, 79.3% of the thresholds differed by ≤10 dB. There was a significant difference (p < 0.01) between smartphone (7.09 min, SD = 1.2) and conventional audiometry test duration (3.23 min, SD = 0.6).The hearTest application with calibrated supra-aural headphones provides a cost-effective option to determine valid air-conduction hearing thresholds.

scholarly journals Psychometric Comparison of the Hearing in Noise Test and the American English Matrix Test

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (04) ◽  
pp. 315-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jumana Harianawala ◽  
Jason Galster ◽  
Benjamin Hornsby
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
American English ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Corpus ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Intensity Functions

AbstractThe hearing in noise test (HINT) is the most popular adaptive test used to evaluate speech in noise performance, especially in context of hearing aid features. However, the number of conditions that can be tested on the HINT is limited by a small speech corpus. The American English Matrix test (AEMT) is a new alternative adaptive speech in noise test with a larger speech corpus. The study examined the relationships between the performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT.To examine whether there was a difference in performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT. A secondary purpose, given the AEMT’s steep performance-intensity function, was to determine whether the AEMT is more sensitive to changes in speech recognition resulting from directional (DIR) microphone processing in hearing aids.A repeated measures design was used in this study. Multiple measurements were made on each subject. Each measurement involved a different experimental condition.Ten adults with hearing loss participated in this study.All participants completed the AEMT and HINT, using adaptive and fixed test formats while wearing hearing aids. Speech recognition was assessed in two hearing aid microphone settings—omnidirectional and fixed DIR. All testing was conducted via sound field presentation. Performance on HINT and AEMT were systematically compared across all test conditions using a linear model with repeated measures.The results of this study revealed that adult hearing aid users perform differently on the HINT and AEMT, with adaptive AEMT testing yielding significantly better (more negative) thresholds than the HINT. Slopes of performance intensity functions obtained by testing at multiple fixed signal-to-noise ratios, revealed a somewhat steeper slope for the HINT compared with the AEMT. Despite this steeper slope, the benefit provided by DIR microphones was not significantly different between the two speech tests.The observation of similar DIR benefits of the HINT and AEMT suggests that the HINT and AEMT are equally sensitive to changes in speech recognition thresholds following intervention. Therefore, the decision to use the AEMT or the HINT will depend on the purpose of the study and/or the technology being investigated. Other test related factors such as available sentence corpus, learning effects and test time will also influence test selection.

scholarly journals Study of Acute and Sub-Acute Effects of Auditory Training on the Central Auditory Processing in Older Adults with Hearing Loss—A Pilot Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (14) ◽  
pp. 4944
Author(s):  
Carla Matos Silva ◽  
Carolina Fernandes ◽  
Clara Rocha ◽  
Telmo Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Auditory Training ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Group 1

Background: Impairment in speech perception is a common feature of older adults. This study aimed at evaluating the acute and sub-acute (after three months) effects of auditory training on central auditory processing in older people with hearing loss. Methods: A nonrandomized study was conducted enrolling 15 older adults with hearing loss and an average age of 78.6 ± 10.9 years. All participants underwent a baseline otoscopy, tympanogram, audiogram and speech-in-noise test with a signal-noise ratio (SNR) of 10 and 15 dB. Afterwards, auditory training intervention was implemented consisting of 10 training sessions over 5 weeks. Participants were divided into two groups: group 1 (G1) underwent auditory training based on a speech-in-noise test; group 2 (G2) underwent a filtered-speech test. Auditory processing was evaluated at baseline (T0) immediately after the intervention (T1) and 3 months after the intervention (T2). Results: Group 1 were quite efficient regardless of the SNR in the right ear with statistically significant differences from T0 to T1 (p = 0.003 and p = 0.006 for 10 dB and 15 dB, respectively) and T0 to T2 (p = 0.011 and 0.015 for 10 dB and 15 dB, respectively). As for the left ear, the increase of success was statistically significant for the SNR of 10 dB and 15 dB from T0 to T1 (p = 0.001 and p = 0.014, respectively) and from T0 to T2 (p = 0.016 and p = 0.003). In G2, there was a significant variation only from T0 for T1 in the left ear for an SNR of 10 dB (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Speech perception in noise significantly improved after auditory training in old adults.

Speech in noise: a practical test procedure

1992 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Jayaram ◽  
D. M. Baguley ◽  
D. A. Moffat
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Test Procedure ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Diagnostic Information ◽  
Practical Test ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Normal Speech

AbstractA simple and effective speech in noise test is described with clinical findings for patients with normal hearing, cochlear and retrocochlear pathologies and auditory dysacusis. The test utilizes material readily available in Audiology and ENT Departments. It was possible to obtain useful diagnostic information in patients who complain of hearing loss, but who demonstrate normalaudiometric thresholds and normal speech in quiet discrimination.

Amplified Earmuffs

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Dolan ◽  
Dennis O’Loughlin
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
High Input ◽  
Industrial Noise ◽  
Low Input ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test

Purpose: To determine how amplified earmuffs affect the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with hearing loss, and to determine how various brands of amplified earmuffs compare in terms of speech intelligibility and electroacoustic response. Method: The Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) was used to measure the intelligibility of speech for 10 participants with hearing loss when they listened in a background of recorded industrial noise at 85 dBA. Participants listened with 3 different sets of amplified earmuffs (Peltor Tactical 7-S, Elvex COM 55, and Bilsom 707 Impact II), with a set of passive earmuffs (E-A-R Ultra 9000), and with ears unoccluded. Two measurements of sentence threshold were obtained under each of the 5 listening conditions. Gain was measured electroacoustically across a range of input levels and frequencies for each amplified earmuff. Results: Electroacoustic measurements indicated that each electronic earmuff amplified at low input levels and attenuated at high input levels. However, gain characteristics varied greatly across devices. HINT sentence thresholds were not significantly different across the 5 listening conditions or across the 2 trials. Conclusion: Results suggest that each type of earmuff can be used to reduce the noise exposure of people with hearing loss without compromising their ability to understand speech.

Homogeneity of the 18 QuickSIN™ Lists

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 157-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. McArdle ◽  
Richard H. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
High Performance ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Performance Variability ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Db Difference

The purpose of this study was to determine the list equivalency of the 18 QuickSIN™ (Quick Speech in Noise test) lists. Individuals with normal hearing (n = 24) and with sensorineural hearing loss (n = 72) were studied. Mean recognition performances on the 18 lists by the listeners with normal hearing were 2.8 to 4.3 dB SNR (signal-to-noise ratio), whereas the range was 10.0 to 14.3 dB SNR for the listeners with hearing loss. The psychometric functions for each list showed high performance variability across lists for listeners with hearing loss but not for listeners with normal hearing. For listeners with hearing loss, Lists 4, 5, 13, and 16 fell outside of the critical difference. The data from this study suggest nine lists that provide homogenous results for listeners with and without hearing loss. Finally, there was an 8.7 dB difference in performances between the two groups indicating a more favorable signal-to-noise ratio required by the listeners with hearing loss to obtain equal performance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document