The Development of Constant Items for Speech Discrimination Testing

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 656-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmer Owens ◽  
Earl D. Schubert
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Closed Set ◽  
Response System ◽  
Speech Discrimination Test ◽  
Discrimination Testing ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Manner Of Articulation

Subjects were English-speaking adults with hearing impairment. Etiology of hearing loss did not enter into selection. Consonant errors were observed on speech discrimination test lists employing a closed-set response system. Fifteen subjects were employed for the first list and 20 each for the remaining four lists, with an occasional subject serving in more than one group. Confusions between unvoiced and voiced consonants rarely occurred; the /r/ and /l/ were seldom confused with other phonemes; and nasals were seldom confused with non-nasals. Discrimination difficulty was related to both place and manner of articulation.

Vowel Discrimination of Hearing-Impaired Listeners

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 648-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmer Owens ◽  
Carolyn B. Talbott ◽  
Earl D. Schubert
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Closed Set ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
General Lack ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Response System ◽  
Discrimination Testing ◽  
Vowel Discrimination

Vowel discrimination ability was observed in two groups of 20 hearing-impaired subjects each. Each group listened to a different list of closed-set test items specifically designed for the study. A surprisingly low number of errors occurred, suggesting that vowel items in general lack the efficiency required for speech discrimination testing using a closed-set response system. Among the most difficult phonemes to discriminate clearly were /ɔ I /, /ɔ/, /au/, /ε/, /o/, and /α/. The phonemes most frequently substituted in error were adjacent to the stimulus phoneme on the Formant 1 versus Formant 2 vowel charts. The /u/ was the most frequent substitution for several vowels.

scholarly journals Performance of Severely Hearing-Impaired Children on a Closed-Response, Auditory Speech Discrimination Test

1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth O. Jones ◽  
Gerald A. Studebaker
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Auditory Speech ◽  
Speech Discrimination Test ◽  
Hearing Function ◽  
Response Set ◽  
Comparison Of The Results ◽  
Impaired Children ◽  
Hearing Impaired Children

The performance of 23 hearing-impaired children on a closed-response, auditory speech discrimination test and on an open-response, auditory speech discrimination test was compared to their performance on auditory tests of sensitivity, teacher-evaluated categories, and other related subject data. A comparison of the results of closed-response, auditory speech discrimination test and the open-response, auditory speech discrimination test indicates that the closed-response set test paradigm appears more productive for use with severely hearing-impaired subjects whose level of performance is low (but not 0%) on the open-response, auditory speech discrimination test. The closed-response test scores for this group are highly positively correlated to data dependent upon hearing function, whereas the open-response scores are not. Analyses of the closed-response set test results indicate that a closed-response set test paradigm can successfully demonstrate auditory speech discrimination error patterns on a subject group basis.

Discrimination Test Word Difficulty

1965 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Test Word ◽  
General Purpose ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Average Level ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Speech Discrimination Test ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
Level Of Difficulty ◽  
Word Difficulty

Criteria for the construction and evaluation of clinical speech discrimination test word lists are reviewed. Particular emphasis is placed on the need for such lists to be appropriate and homogeneous in both range and average level of word difficulty. Individual word difficulty data obtained from a clinical population with discrimination losses are presented for the recorded CID W-22 Auditory Test Series. These data permitted the rearrangement of the 200 W-22 words into eight 25-word lists which promise to be more homogeneous in average level of difficulty. However, the range of word difficulty, of both the original or reconstructed tests, falls short of the optimal distribution for a general-purpose speech discrimination test.

scholarly journals Use of the CID W22 as a South African English speech discrimination test

2000 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne J. Wilson ◽  
Selvarani Moodley
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
First Language ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Viable Option ◽  
Speech Discrimination Test

South Africa currently lacks a pre-recorded South African English (SAE) specific speech discrimination test. In the absence of such a test, the SAE speaker recording (Tygerberg recording) of the American (USA) English (AE) CID W22 wordlists - in combination with the original American CID W22 normative data - is the most widely used alternative. The reliability and validity of this method, however, has never been formally assessed. This study assessed the performance of 15 normal hearing, female, first language SAE speakers on the first two full-lists of Tygerberg CID W22 recording at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 dBSPL, and compared their scores to the American CID W22 wordlist normative data. Overall, the South African subjects performed worse than the original American normative data at the lower presentation intensities( 40 dBSPL), however, was considered a viable option. These results reiterate the need for large scale, South African specific normative studies for the CID W22 wordlists if they are to continue their role as the dominant speech discrimination wordlists in South Africa.

Progressive Hearing Loss in Usher's Syndrome

1989 ◽  
Vol 98 (11) ◽  
pp. 863-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seppo Karjalainen ◽  
Leena Pakarinen ◽  
Helena Kääriäinen ◽  
Markku Teräsvirta ◽  
Eero Vartiainen
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Auditory Threshold ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Threshold Values ◽  
Progressive Hearing Loss ◽  
Usher’S Syndrome

In 18 patients with Usher's syndrome, progressive hearing loss was verified audiologically in eight cases. Despite poor auditory threshold values and low speech discrimination scores, there was only one patient who could not communicate with speech. The possibility of hearing impairment being mainly progressive in Usher's syndrome is discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document