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.

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.

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.

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.

The Onset–Offset N1–P2 Auditory Evoked Response in Individuals With High-Frequency Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Responses to Broadband Noise

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Jennifer E. Gonzalez ◽  
Frank E. Musiek
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Stimulus Duration ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
Evoked Response ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Auditory Evoked Response

Purpose Clinical use of electrophysiologic measures has been limited to use of brief stimuli to evoke responses. While brief stimuli elicit onset responses in individuals with normal hearing and normal central auditory nervous system (CANS) function, responses represent the integrity of a fraction of the mainly excitatory central auditory neurons. Longer stimuli could provide information regarding excitatory and inhibitory CANS function. Our goal was to measure the onset–offset N1–P2 auditory evoked response in subjects with normal hearing and subjects with moderate high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss (HFSNHL) to determine whether the response can be measured in individuals with moderate HFSNHL and, if so, whether waveform components differ between participant groups. Method Waveforms were obtained from 10 participants with normal hearing and seven participants with HFSNHL aged 40–67 years using 2,000-ms broadband noise stimuli with 40-ms rise–fall times presented at 50 dB SL referenced to stimulus threshold. Amplitudes and latencies were analyzed via repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). N1 and P2 onset latencies were compared to offset counterparts via repeated-measures ANOVA after subtracting 2,000 ms from the offset latencies to account for stimulus duration. Offset-to-onset trough-to-peak amplitude ratios between groups were compared using a one-way ANOVA. Results Responses were evoked from all participants. There were no differences between participant groups for the waveform components measured. Response × Participant Group interactions were not significant. Offset N1–P2 latencies were significantly shorter than onset counterparts after adjusting for stimulus duration (normal hearing: 43 ms shorter; HFSNHL: 47 ms shorter). Conclusions Onset–offset N1–P2 responses were resistant to moderate HFSNHL. It is likely that the onset was elicited by the presentation of a sound in silence and the offset by the change in stimulus envelope from plateau to fall, suggesting an excitatory onset response and an inhibitory-influenced offset response. Results indicated this protocol can be used to investigate CANS function in individuals with moderate HFSNHL. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14669007

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 Influence of Instantaneous Compression on Recognition of Speech in Noise with Temporal Dips

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (01) ◽  
pp. 016-030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Rasetshwane ◽  
David A. Raybine ◽  
Judy G. Kopun ◽  
Michael P. Gorga ◽  
Stephen T. Neely
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Processing Condition ◽  
Simultaneous Presentation ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Signal Processing Algorithm ◽  
Masking Release

AbstractIn listening environments with background noise that fluctuates in level, listeners with normal hearing can “glimpse” speech during dips in the noise, resulting in better speech recognition in fluctuating noise than in steady noise at the same overall level (referred to as masking release). Listeners with sensorineural hearing loss show less masking release. Amplification can improve masking release but not to the same extent that it does for listeners with normal hearing.The purpose of this study was to compare masking release for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss obtained with an experimental hearing-aid signal-processing algorithm with instantaneous compression (referred to as a suppression hearing aid, SHA) to masking release obtained with fast compression. The suppression hearing aid mimics effects of normal cochlear suppression, i.e., the reduction in the response to one sound by the simultaneous presentation of another sound.A within-participant design with repeated measures across test conditions was used.Participants included 29 adults with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss and 21 adults with normal hearing.Participants with sensorineural hearing loss were fitted with simulators for SHA and a generic hearing aid (GHA) with fast (but not instantaneous) compression (5 ms attack and 50 ms release times) and no suppression. Gain was prescribed using either an experimental method based on categorical loudness scaling (CLS) or the Desired Sensation Level (DSL) algorithm version 5a, resulting in a total of four processing conditions: CLS-GHA, CLS-SHA, DSL-GHA, and DSL-SHA.All participants listened to consonant-vowel-consonant nonwords in the presence of temporally-modulated and steady noise. An adaptive-tracking procedure was used to determine the signal-to-noise ratio required to obtain 29% and 71% correct. Measurements were made with amplification for participants with sensorineural hearing loss and without amplification for participants with normal hearing.Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to determine the influence of within-participant factors of noise type and, for participants with sensorineural hearing loss, processing condition on masking release. Pearson correlational analysis was used to assess the effect of age on masking release for participants with sensorineural hearing loss.Statistically significant masking release was observed for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss for 29% correct, but not for 71% correct. However, the amount of masking release was less than masking release for participants with normal hearing. There were no significant differences among the amplification conditions for participants with sensorineural hearing loss.The results suggest that amplification with either instantaneous or fast compression resulted in similar masking release for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. However, the masking release was less for participants with hearing loss than it was for those with normal hearing.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document