scholarly journals A Comparison of Word-Recognition Performances on the Auditec and VA Recorded Versions of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by Young Listeners with Normal Hearing and by Older Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Loss Using a Randomized Presentation-Level Paradigm

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (05) ◽  
pp. 370-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Similar Data ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Northwestern University ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
The Individual

AbstractThe Auditec of St. Louis and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recorded versions of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) are in common usage. Data on young adults with normal hearing for pure tones (YNH) demonstrate equal recognition performances on the two versions when the VA version is presented 5 dB higher but similar data on older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss (OHL) are lacking.To compare word-recognition performances on the Auditec and VA versions of NU-6 presented at six presentation levels with YNH and OHL listeners.A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used.Twelve YNH (M = 24.0 years; PTA = 9.9-dB HL) and 36 OHL listeners (M = 71.6 years; PTA = 26.7-dB HL) participated in three, one-hour sessions.Each listener received 100 stimulus words that were randomized by 6 presentation levels for each of two speakers (YNH, −2 to 28-dB SL; OHL, −2 to 38-dB SL). The sessions were limited to 25 practice and 400 experimental words. Digital versions of the 16, 25-word tracks for each session were alternated between speakers.Each of the 48 listeners had higher recognition performances on the Auditec version of NU-6 than on the VA version. The respective overall recognition performances on the Auditec and VA versions were 71.4% and 64.1% (YNH) and 68.7% and 58.2% (OHL). At the highest presentation levels, recognition performances on the two versions differed by only 0.5% (YNH) and 3.3% (OHL). At the 50% correct point, performances on the Auditec version were 3.2 dB (YNH) and 6.1 dB (OHL) better than those on the VA version. The slopes at the 50% points on the mean functions for both speakers were about 4.9%/dB (YNH) and 3.0%/dB (OHL); however, the slopes evaluated from the individual listener data were steeper, 5.2 to 5.3%/dB (YNH) and 3.3 to 3.5%/dB (OHL). When the individual data were transformed from dB SL to dB HL, the differences between the two listener groups were emphasized. The four functions (2 speakers by 2 listener groups) were plotted for each of the 48 participants and each of the 200 words, which revealed the gamut of relations among the datasets. Examination of the data for each speaker across test sessions, in the traditional 50-word lists, and in the typically used 25-word lists of Randomization A revealed no differences of clinical concern. Finally, introspective reports from the listeners revealed that 91.7% and 83.3% of the YNH and OHL listeners, respectively, thought the Auditec speaker was easier to understand than the VA speaker. Recognition performances on each participant and on each word are presented.

The Words-in-Noise Test (WIN), List 3: A Practice List

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (02) ◽  
pp. 092-096 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Kelly L. Watts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Word List ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Practice List ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
The Individual

Background: The Words-in-Noise Test (WIN) was developed as an instrument to quantify the ability of listeners to understand monosyllabic words in background noise using multitalker babble (Wilson, 2003). The 50% point, which is calculated with the Spearman-Kärber equation (Finney, 1952), is used as the evaluative metric with the WIN materials. Initially, the WIN was designed as a 70-word instrument that presented ten unique words at each of seven signal-to-noise ratios from 24 to 0 dB in 4 dB decrements. Subsequently, the 70-word list was parsed into two 35-word lists that achieved equivalent recognition performances (Wilson and Burks, 2005). This report involves the development of a third list (WIN List 3) that was developed to serve as a practice list to familiarize the participant with listening to words presented in background babble. Purpose: To determine—on young listeners with normal hearing and on older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss—the psychometric properties of the WIN List 3 materials. Research Design: A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used. Study Sample: Twenty-four young adult listeners (M = 21.6 yr) with normal pure-tone thresholds (≤20 dB HL at 250 to 8000 Hz) and 24 older listeners (M = 65.9 yr) with sensorineural hearing loss participated. Data Collection and Analysis: The level of the babble was fixed at 80 dB SPL with the level of the words varied from 104 to 80 dB SPL in 4 dB decrements. Results: For listeners with normal hearing, the 50% points for Lists 1 and 2 were similar (4.3 and 5.1 dB S/N, respectively), both of which were lower than the 50% point for List 3 (7.4 dB S/N). A similar relation was observed with the listeners with hearing loss, 50% points for Lists 1 and 2 of 12.2 and 12.4 dB S/N, respectively, compared to 15.8 dB S/N for List 3. The differences between Lists 1 and 2 and List 3 were significant. The relations among the psychometric functions and the relations among the individual data both reflected these differences. Conclusions: The significant ˜3 dB difference between performances on WIN Lists 1 and 2 and on WIN List 3 by the listeners with normal hearing and the listeners with hearing loss dictates caution with the use of List 3. The use of WIN List 3 should be reserved for ancillary purposes in which equivalent recognition performances are not required, for example, as a practice list or a stand alone measure.

The Homogeneity with Respect to Intelligibility of Recorded Word-Recognition Materials

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (04) ◽  
pp. 331-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Rachel McArdle
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Prospective Studies ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Word List ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
The Mean

Background: In developing the PB-50 word lists, J. P. Egan suggested five developmental principles, two of which were “equal average difficulty” and an “equal range of difficulty” among the lists (page 963). Egan was satisfied that each of the 20 PB-50 lists had equivalent ranges of recognition performances and that the lists produced the same average performances. This was accomplished in preliminary studies that measured the recognition performance of each word and eliminated words that were always or never correct. In preparing for studies of interrupted words, we needed to know the range of difficulty inherent in the speaker specific NU-6 and Maryland CNC materials we planned to use when those words were not interrupted. There were only a few studies in the literature that touched on the range of difficulty characteristic of the word-recognition materials in common usage. The paucity of this information prompted this investigation whose scope broadened to include the CID W-22, Maryland CNC, NU-6, and PB-50 materials spoken by a variety of speakers. Purpose: The purpose was to evaluate the homogeneity with respect to intelligibility of the words that comprise several of the common word-recognition materials used in audiologic evaluations. Research Design: Both retrospective (10) and prospective (3) studies were involved. Data from six of the retrospective studies were from our labs. The prospective studies involved both listeners with normal hearing for pure tones and listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Study Sample: The sample sizes for the 13 data sets ranged from 24 to 1,030, with 24 the typical number for listeners with normal hearing. Data Collection and Analysis: The retrospective data were from published studies and archived data from our laboratories. The prospective studies involved presentation of the word-recognition materials to the listeners at a comfortable level. An item analysis was conducted on each data set with descriptive statistics used to characterize the data. Additionally, skewness coefficients were calculated on the distributions of word performances and the interquartile range was used to determine minor and major outliers within each set of 200 words and their component 50-word lists (300 words for the Maryland CNCs). Results: For listeners with normal hearing the majority of performances on the words within a 50-word list were better than the mean performance, which produced negatively skewed distributions with outlier performances in every list. For listeners with sensorineural hearing loss the performances on the words within a 50-word list were evenly distributed above and below the mean performance, which yielded essentially normal distributions with few outliers. There were a few words on which performances were better by the listeners with hearing loss. Conclusions: Every list of word-recognition materials has a few words on which recognition performances are noticeably poorer than performances on the majority of the remaining words. If the intention of an experiment is to evaluate performance at the word level, then identifying these “outliers” becomes a necessity. Although not evaluated in this report, the implications for 25-word lists are they should be based on recognition-performance data and not compiled arbitrarily.

A Comparison of the Effects of Filtering and Sensorineural Hearing Loss on Patterns of Consonant Confusions

1978 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn D. Wang ◽  
Charlotte M. Reed ◽  
Robert C. Bilger
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Essentially Normal ◽  
Phonological Features ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Sequential Information ◽  
The Individual ◽  
High Pass

It has been found that listeners with sensorineural hearing loss who show similar patterns of consonant confusions also tend to have similar audiometric profiles. The present study determined whether normal listeners, presented with filtered speech, would produce consonant confusions similar to those previously reported for the hearing-impaired listener. Consonant confusion matrices were obtained from eight normal-hearing subjects for four sets of CV and VC nonsense syllables presented under six high-pass and six low-pass filtering conditions. Patterns of consonant confusion for each condition were described using phonological features in a sequential information analysis. Severe low-pass filtering produced consonant confusions comparable to those of listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Severe high-pass filtering gave a result comparable to that of patients with flat or rising audiograms. And, mild filtering resulted in confusion patterns comparable to those of listeners with essentially normal hearing. An explanation in terms of the spectrum, the level of speech, and the configuration of the individual listener’s audiogram is given.

Interrupted Monosyllabic Words: The Effects of Ten Interruption Locations on Recognition Performance by Older Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (01) ◽  
pp. 068-079
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Kadie C. Sharrett
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Monosyllabic Words ◽  
Word Onset ◽  
Temporal Location

AbstractTwo previous experiments from our laboratory with 70 interrupted monosyllabic words demonstrated that recognition performance was influenced by the temporal location of the interruption pattern. The interruption pattern (10 interruptions/sec, 50% duty cycle) was always the same and referenced word onset; the only difference between the patterns was the temporal location of the on- and off-segments of the interruption cycle. In the first study, both young and older listeners obtained better recognition performances when the initial on-segment coincided with word onset than when the initial on-segment was delayed by 50 msec. The second experiment with 24 young listeners detailed recognition performance as the interruption pattern was incremented in 10-msec steps through the 0- to 90-msec onset range. Across the onset conditions, 95% of the functions were either flat or U-shaped.To define the effects that interruption pattern locations had on word recognition by older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss as the interruption pattern incremented, re: word onset, from 0 to 90 msec in 10-msec steps.A repeated-measures design with ten interruption patterns (onset conditions) and one uninterruption condition.Twenty-four older males (mean = 69.6 yr) with sensorineural hearing loss participated in two 1-hour sessions. The three-frequency pure-tone average was 24.0 dB HL and word recognition was ≥80% correct.Seventy consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant words formed the corpus of materials with 25 additional words used for practice. For each participant, the 700 interrupted stimuli (70 words by 10 onset conditions), the 70 words uninterrupted, and two practice lists each were randomized and recorded on compact disc in 33 tracks of 25 words each.The data were analyzed at the participant and word levels and compared to the results obtained earlier on 24 young listeners with normal hearing. The mean recognition performance on the 70 words uninterrupted was 91.0% with an overall mean performance on the ten interruption conditions of 63.2% (range: 57.9–69.3%), compared to 80.4% (range: 73.0–87.7%) obtained earlier on the young adults. The best performances were at the extremes of the onset conditions. Standard deviations ranged from 22.1% to 28.1% (24 participants) and from 9.2% to 12.8% (70 words). An arithmetic algorithm categorized the shapes of the psychometric functions across the ten onset conditions. With the older participants in the current study, 40% of the functions were flat, 41.4% were U-shaped, and 18.6% were inverted U-shaped, which compared favorably to the function shapes by the young listeners in the earlier study of 50.0%, 41.4%, and 8.6%, respectively. There were two words on which the older listeners had 40% better performances.Collectively, the data are orderly, but at the individual word or participant level, the data are somewhat volatile, which may reflect auditory processing differences between the participant groups. The diversity of recognition performances by the older listeners on the ten interruption conditions with each of the 70 words supports the notion that the term hearing loss is inclusive of processes well beyond the filtering produced by end-organ sensitivity deficits.

scholarly journals The SSI and NU6 in Clinical Hearing Aid Evaluation

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Orchik ◽  
Norma Roddy
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Northwestern University

The Synthetic Sentence Identification (SSI) and the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU6) were compared in a hearing aid evaluation procedure using normal-hearing listeners and subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. Listener performance was assessed at three message-to-competition ratios (MCR) employing the same competing message. Aided benefit and residual deficit were evaluated for both measures and, in general, the results obtained with the NU6 indicated greater aided benefit as well as greater residual deficit than the SSI for these hearing-impaired subjects. The results are discussed in terms of the implications for clinical hearing aid evaluations.

The 500 Hz Masking-Level Difference and Word Recognition in Multitalker Babble for 40- to 89-Year-Old Listeners with Symmetrical Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (06) ◽  
pp. 367-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Deborah G. Weakley
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Systematic Relationship ◽  
Masking Level Difference

The purpose of this study was to determine if performances on a 500 Hz MLD task and a word-recognition task in multitalker babble covaried or varied independently for listeners with normal hearing and for listeners with hearing loss. Young listeners with normal hearing (n = 25) and older listeners (25 per decade from 40–80 years, n = 125) with sensorineural hearing loss were studied. Thresholds at 500 and 1000 Hz were ≤30 dB HL and ≤40 dB HL, respectively, with thresholds above 1000 Hz <100 dB HL. There was no systematic relationship between the 500 Hz MLD and word-recognition performance in multitalker babble. Higher SoNo and SπNo; thresholds were observed for the older listeners, but the MLDs were the same for all groups. Word recognition in babble in terms of signal-to-babble ratio was on average 6.5 (40- to 49-year-old group) to 10.8 dB (80- to 89-year-old group) poorer for the older listeners with hearing loss. Neither pure-tone thresholds nor word-recognition abilities in quiet accurately predicted word-recognition performance in multitalker babble.

Dimensions of Consonant Perception in Normal and Hearing-Impaired Listeners

1975 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 444-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Allen A. Montgomery
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Similarity Judgments ◽  
The Individual

Judgments of consonant similarity were obtained from subjects who had normal hearing, high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss, or relatively flat sensorineural hearing loss. The individual differences model through program INDSCAL was used to derive a set of perceptual features empirically from the similarity judgments, and to group the subjects on the basis of strength of feature usage. The analysis revealed that sonorance was the dominant dimension in the similarity judgments of the subjects with high-frequency hearing losses, while sibilance tended to dominate the judgments of the subjects with flat audiometric configurations. The normal-hearing subjects tended to weight these two dimensions approximately equally. These differences in similarity judgments were observed based upon audiometric configuration, despite the fact that the two hearing-impaired groups were not unique in word-recognition ability.

A Comparison of Recognition Performances in Speech-Spectrum Noise by Listeners with Normal Hearing on PB-50, CID W-22, NU–6, W-1 Spondaic Words, and Monosyllabic Digits Spoken by the Same Speaker

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (06) ◽  
pp. 496-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Rachel McArdle ◽  
Heidi Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Psychometric Characteristics ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
Monosyllabic Words ◽  
Speech Spectrum

Background: So that portions of the classic Miller, Heise, and Lichten (1951) study could be replicated, new recorded versions of the words and digits were made because none of the three common monosyllabic word lists (PAL PB-50, CID W-22, and NU–6) contained the 9 monosyllabic digits (1–10, excluding 7) that were used by Miller et al. It is well established that different psychometric characteristics have been observed for different lists and even for the same materials spoken by different speakers. The decision was made to record four lists of each of the three monosyllabic word sets, the monosyllabic digits not included in the three sets of word lists, and the CID W-1 spondaic words. A professional female speaker with a General American dialect recorded the materials during four recording sessions within a 2-week interval. The recording order of the 582 words was random. Purpose: To determine—on listeners with normal hearing—the psychometric properties of the five speech materials presented in speech-spectrum noise. Research Design: A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used. Study Sample: Twenty-four young adult listeners (M = 23 years) with normal pure-tone thresholds (≤20-dB HL at 250 to 8000 Hz) participated. The participants were university students who were unfamiliar with the test materials. Data Collection and Analysis: The 582 words were presented at four signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs; −7-, −2-, 3-, and 8-dB) in speech-spectrum noise fixed at 72-dB SPL. Although the main metric of interest was the 50% point on the function for each word established with the Spearman-Kärber equation (Finney, 1952), the percentage correct on each word at each SNR was evaluated. The psychometric characteristics of the PB-50, CID W-22, and NU–6 monosyllabic word lists were compared with one another, with the CID W-1 spondaic words, and with the 9 monosyllabic digits. Results: Recognition performance on the four lists within each of the three monosyllabic word materials were equivalent, ±0.4 dB. Likewise, word-recognition performance on the PB-50, W-22, and NU–6 word lists were equivalent, ±0.2 dB. The mean recognition performance at the 50% point with the 36 W-1 spondaic words was ˜6.2 dB lower than the 50% point with the monosyllabic words. Recognition performance on the monosyllabic digits was 1–2 dB better than mean performance on the monosyllabic words. Conclusions: Word-recognition performances on the three sets of materials (PB-50, CID W-22, and NU–6) were equivalent, as were the performances on the four lists that make up each of the three materials. Phonetic/phonemic balance does not appear to be an important consideration in the compilation of word-recognition lists used to evaluate the ability of listeners to understand speech.A companion paper examines the acoustic, phonetic/phonological, and lexical variables that may predict the relative ease or difficulty for which these monosyllable words were recognized in noise (McArdle and Wilson, this issue).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document